AN  HISTORICAL  SKETCH 


OF 

HENRY’S  CONTRIBUTION 

ALTGELD  HALL  STACKS 

TO  THE 

ELECTRO-MAGNETIC  TELEGRAPH 


WITH 


AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
PROF.  MORSE’S  INVENTION. 


BY  WILLIAM  B.  TAYLOE. 


[FROM  THE  SMITHSONIAN  REPORT  FOR  1873.] 


WASHINGTON: 
GOYERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE. 
1879. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


By  William  B.  Taylor. 


“ Yet  though  thy  purer  spirit  did  not  ueed 
The  vulgar  guerdon  of  a brief  renown, 

Some  little  meed  at  least — some  little  meed 

Our  age  may  yield  to  thy  more  lasting  crown.” 


Iii  the  impulsive  tide  of  popular  applause  which  follows  the  consum- 
mation of  great  enterprises,  or  the  material  advancement  from  new  con- 
quests of  natural  law,  the  labors  and  merits  of  those  who  patiently  laid 
the  deep  and  broad  foundations  of  these  successes,  or  who  with  rarest 
diligence,  sagacity,  and  skill,  made  such  successes  practicable,  are  usu- 
ally whelmed;  and — save  by  the  scientific  student,  are  mostly  forgotten 
and  ignored.  And  this  result  is  the  more  assured  by  reason  of  the  en- 
tire self-unconsciousness  and  devotion  with  which  the  higher  work  of 
original  research  is  conducted,  with  no  disturbing  thought  on  the  part 
of  the  investigator,  of  reaping  immediate  advantage  or  reward  from  the 
bestowal  of  the  new  discovery. 

1 ‘ For  praise  is  bis  who  builds  for  liis  own  age ; 

But  be  wbo  builds  for  time,  must  look  to  time  for  wage.”* 

That  the  award  of  time  respecting  Henry’s  true  relation  to  the  tele- 
graph will  be  discriminating  and  just,  may  be  confidently  anticipated, 
since  the  materials  and  data  for  an  accurate  judgment  are  already  matter 
of  enduring  record.!  In  attempting  here  to  briefly  review  this  record, 
justice  will  best  be  done  to  Henry’s  fame  by  rendering  full  justice  to 
Henry’s  predecessors. 

The  Growth  of  the  Electric  Telegraph. — u The  electric  telegraph  had 
properly  speaking,  no  inventor.  It  grew  up  little  by  little,  each  inventor 
adding  his  little  to  advance  it  toward  perfection.”  i:  These  words  of 
soberness  and  truth  are  little  apprehended  by  the  multitude ; who  blind 
alike  to  the  beginnings  and  to  the  growths  of  great  ideas,  contemn  the 

* Prof.  Grant  Allen. 

tin  the  spirit  of  Kepler  (though  with  less  of  self-assertion),  Henry,  with  a modest  esti- 
mate of  bis  own  contributions  to  science,  while  evincing  a remarkable  indifference  to 
popularity,  yet  with  the  quiet  confidence  of  a clear  and  impartial  judgment,  declared 
“ I was  content  that  my  published  researches  should  remaiu  as  material  for  the  his- 
tory of  science,  and  be  pronounced  upon  according  to  their  true  value  by  the  scientific 
world.” — (Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  p.  87.) 

i The  Electric  Telegraph.  By  Robert  Sabine.  8vo.  London,  1807,  part  i,  chap,  iv 
sect.  59,  p.  40.  ’ 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


€ 

discoverer  while  they  deify  the  artisan.  When  Galvani  about  a cen- 
tury ago  (1786)  first  opened  slightly  the  door  to  one  of  nature’s  mar- 
vels, that  large  community  ever  distinguished  by  the  vigor  of  its  com- 
mon sense  and  the  practical  solidity  of  its  judgment,  asked  with  ready 
instinct  the  wise  and  ancient  question,  u What  is  the  use  of  it?”  And  a 
majority  of  those  who  recognized  the  experimenter’s  appearance  on  the 
streets  of  Bologna,  pointed  him  out  as  the  u frog  philosopher.”  Their 
descendants  and  representatives  at  the  present  day  have  neither  lost — 
nor  gained  in  wit.* * * § 

It  is  proposed  to  notice  the  development  of  the  electric  telegraph 
somewhat  at  length,  in  order  to  exhibit  more  clearly  the  precise  nature 
and  value  of  Henry’s  contribution  to  its  practical  establishment  and 
success.  This  survey  naturally  divides  itself  into  a chronological  re- 
view of  the  successive  though  overlapping  applications — of  frictional  or 
mechanical  electricity  (first  suggested  by  Franklin?  or  by  Lesage?  about 
the  middle  of  the  last  century) ; f of  galvanism  or  chemical  electricity 
(first  suggested  by  Soemmering  in  1808) ; and  of  galvano-magnetism 
(first  suggested  by  Ampere  in  1820)4 

Among  the  numerous  flights  of  imagination  by  which  genius  has  fre- 
quently anticipated  the  achievements  of  her  more  deliberate  and  cautious 
sister — earth- walking  reason,  none  is  perhaps  more  striking  than  the  ro- 
mantic conception  by  Famianus  Strada,  of  Borne,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  of  an  intercourse  maintained  between  separated 
friends  by  means  of  two  sympathetic  magnetic  compasses,  whereby  the 
indications  on  the  dial  given  by  one,  were  instantly  made  visible  to  the 
other.  § 

* On  tlie  value  of  abstract  science,  see  “ Supplement,”  Note  A. 

t Mr.  Stephen  Gray,  in  a letter  to  Dr.  Cromwell  Mortimer,  secretary  of  the  Royal  Soci" 
ety  of  London,  dated  February  8, 1731,  recited  among  numerous  electrical  experiments, 
the  passage  of  sparks  and  the  excitation  of  an  electroscope,  effected  through  293  feet  of 
wire  suspended  by  silk,  in  1729;  through  666  feet  on  July  3 of  that  year;  a week  or 
two  later,  through  765  feet  ; and  in  August,  1730,  through  886  feet  of  wire.  (Phil. 
Trans.  E.  S.  1731,  vol.  xxxvii,  No.  417,  pp.  29,  31,  and  44.)  These  experiments  were 
made  however  for  the  purpose  of  determining  conductive  capacity,  without  any  view 
of  employing  the  indications  for  signals. 

A letter  was  published  in  the  Scots’  Magazine , dated  Renfrew,  February- 1,  1753,  and 
signed  “ C.  M.,”  which,  under  the  title  “An  expeditious  method  of  conveyiug  intelli- 
gence,” proposed  the  suspension  between  two  distant  points  of  a number  of  insulated 
wires  (equal  to  the  number  of  letters  in  the  alphabet),  through  which  electrical  dis- 
charges should  separately  exhibit  themselves  by  the  di  verging  balls  of  an  electroscope, 
or  the  striking  of  a bell  by  the  attraction  of  a charged  ball.  The  author  of  the  com- 
munication was  supposed  by  Sir  David  Brewster  to  be  a Charles  Marshall,  of  Paisley. 
( The  Engineer,  London,  Dec.  24,  1858,  vol.  vi.,  p.  484.)  It  is  probable  that  G.  L.  Le- 
sage, of  Geneva,  entertained  the  proj  ect  of  an  electric  telegraph  as  early  as  the  middle 
of  the  last  century.  It  was  therefore  rather  the  impulse  of  an  age,  than  the  inspira- 
tion of  an  individual. 

tThe  application  of  magneto-electricity,  presenting  no  essential  differences  from  the 
use  of  galvano-electricity,  (for  which  it  is  sometimes  substituted,)  requires  no  special 
notice.  Still  less  noteworthy  is  the  project  of  thermo-electricity  as  the  motor. 

§ Prolusiones  Acaclemicce : by  F.  Strada,  quarto,  Rome,  1617,  lib.  ii,  prolusio  6.  A 
century  later,  (but  still  a third  of  a century  before  man  dreamed  of  electric  telegraphs,) 
Joseph  Addison  presented  the  following  version  of  this  fairy  tale:  “Strada,  in  one 
of  his  Prolusions,  gives  an  account  of  a chimerical  correspondence  between  two 
friends  by  the  help  of  a certain  loadstone  which  had  such  a virtue  in  it  that  if  it 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


7 


“Two  faithful  needles — from  the  informing  touch 
Of  the  same  parent  stone,  together  drew 
Its  mystic  virtue ; 

And  though  disjoined  hy  kingdoms, — though  the  main 
Rolled  its  broad  surge  betwixt, — and  different  stars 
Beheld  their  wakeful  motions, — yet  preserved 
Their  former  friendship  and  remembered  still 
The  alliance  of  their  birth.” *  * 

It  needed  but  the  later  discovery  of  the  galvanic  wire  for  connecting 
the  two  needles,  to  realize  completely  this  vision  of  an  “oriental”  fancy, 
and  to  render  it  the  sober  experience  of  our  present  every-day  life. 

I. — TELEGRAPHS  BY  ELECTRICITY. 

If  the  earlier  attempts  commencing  in  the  last  century  to  apply  so-called 
“static”  electricity  to  the  purpose  of  telegraphy  may  to  some  appear 
to  possess  only  an  antiquarian  interest,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  form 
the  necessary,  and  by  no  means  insignificant,  childhood  of  our  modern 
systems.  Neglecting  generally  mere  speculations,  as  well  as  initial  con- 
ceptions of  executed  schemes,  the  following  comprise  the  more  import- 
ant experimental  devices,  in  the  order  of  their  approximate  realization. 

1774.  The  first  electric  telegraph  of  which  there  is  record,  is  that  es- 
tablished at  Geneva  by  Georges -Louis  Lesage.  The  line  consisted  of 
24  insulated  wires  for  the  alphabet,  each  terminating  in  a pith-ball  elec- 
troscope duly  lettered,  for  indicating  by  its  excitement  the  succession 
forming  the  words  and  sentences  given  by  the  operator,  who  employed 
at  the  transmitting  station  a manual  conductor  from  an  electrical  ma- 
chine. t 

1787.  M.  Lomond,  at  Paris,  had  a single  brass  wire  extended  from  one 
closed  apartment  to  another  at  some  distance  from  it,  in  connection  with 
a pith-ball  electroscope  at  each  end,  by  which  arrangement  he  was  able 
to  communicate  sentences  in  either  direction.  Arthur  Young,  the  dili- 
gent writer  on  natural  and  industrial  resources,  has  thus  described  the 
apparatus  in  his  journal:  October  16, 1787, — “ In  the  evening,  to  Mons. 

touched  two  several  needles,  when  one  of  the  needles  so  touched  began  to  move,  the 
other  though  at  never  so  great  a distance,  moved  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same 
manner.  He  tells  us  that  the  two  friends  being  each  of  them  possessed  of  one  of  these 
needles,  made  a kind  of  dial-plate,  inscribing  it  with  the  four-and-twenty  letters,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  hours  of  the  day  are  marked  upon  the  ordinary  dial-plate. 
They  then  fixed  one  of  the  needles  on  each  of  these  plates  in  such  a manner  that  it 
could  move  round  without  impediment,  so  as  to  touch  any  of  the  four-and-twenty 
letters.  . . . By  this  means  they  talked  together  across  a whole  continent,  and 

conveyed  their  thoughts  to  one  another  in  an  instant  over  cities  or  mountains,  seas 
or  deserts.”  ( The  Spectator , No.  241,  Dec.  6,  1711.)  A similar  idea  (probably  borrowed 
from  Strada)  is  found  in  Daniel  Schwenter’s  MathemaUsch-philosophische  Erguickungs- 
stunden ; published  at  Nuremberg  in  1636,  pp.  346,  347. 

*Akenside,  Pleasures  of  Imagination  (1744),  book  iii. 

t Lesage,  in  a letter  addressed  to  Prof.  Pierre  Pr6vost,  of  Geneva,  dated  Berlin,  June 
22,  1782,  describing  to  his  friend  the  details  of  his  telegraph,  states  that  the  method  of 
corresponding  by  means  of  electricity  had  been  contemplated  by  him  for  thirty  or 
thirty-five  years.  ( TraiU  de  Telegraphie  Plectrigue : par  l’Abb6  Moigno,  2d  edit.  8vo. 
Paris,  1852,  part  ii,  chap.  1,  p.  59.) 


8 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Lomond,  a very  ingenious  and  inventive  mechanic,  who  has  made  an 
improvement  of  the  jenny  for  spinning  cotton.  In  electricity  he  has 
made  a remarkable  discovery.  You  write  two  or  three  words  on  a paper ; 
he  takes  it  with  him  into  a room,  and  turns  a machine  inclosed  in  a cylin- 
drical case,  at  the  top  of  which  is  an  electrometer, — a small  fine  pith  ball ; 
a wire  connects  with  a similar  cylinder  and  electrometer  in  a distant 
apartment  ; and  his  wife  by  remarking  the  corresponding  motions  of 
the  ball,  writes  down  the  words  they  indicate.  From  which  it  appears 
that  he  has  formed  an  alphabet  of  motions.  As  the  length  of  the  wire 
makes  no  difference  in  the  effect,  a correspondence  might  be  carried  on 

at  anv  distance.”  * 

^ / 

1794.  M.  Beiser,  at  Geneva,  arranged  a line  of  36  insulated  wires, 
each  separately  connected  at  the  receiving-station  with  a small  grat- 
ing of  narrow  tin-foil  strips  pasted  on  glass,  from  which  a letter  or 
figure  had  been  cut,  so  as  to  represent  the  character  by  the  passage  of 
the  electric  spark  over  the  series  of  narrow  spaces.  O11  a square  plate 
were  fastened  36  of  these  independent  gratings,  representing  the  26  let- 
ters and  10  numerals.  “The  instant  the  discharge  is  made  through  the 
wire,  the  spark  is  seen  simultaneously  at  each  of  the  interruptions  or 
breaks  of  the  tin-foil  constituting  the  letter,  and  the  whole  letter  is 
rendered  visible  at  once.”  The  sparks  were  transmitted  through  the 
selected  wire  and  its  corresponding  symbol  from  a small  electrical  ma- 
chine kept  in  operation  at  the  sending  station,  t 

1795.  Tiberius  Cavallo,  in  England,  experimented  with  electric  signals 
of  various  kinds  (explosive  and  otherwise)  through  a long  and  tolerably 
fine  copper  wire  (about  the  fortieth  of  an  inch  in  diameter)  insulated  by 
successive  coatings  of  pitch,  linen  strips,  woolen  cloth,  and  oil-painting. 
He  found  a Leyden  jar  of  about  one  square  foot,  sufficient  for  the  re- 
quired electric  spark,  if  the  length  of  the  wire  did  not  exceed  200  feet. 
He  remarks:  “By  sending  a number  of  sparks  at  different  inter- 
vals of  time  according  to  a settled  plan,  any  sort  of  intelligence  might 
be  conveyed  instantaneously  from  the  place  in  which  the  filial  is  sit- 
uated. With  respect  to  the  greatest  distance  to  which  such  communi- 
cation might  be  extended,  I can  only  say  that  I never  tried  the  experi- 
ment with  a wire  of  communication  longer  than  about  250  feet ; but  from 
the  results  of  those  experiments,  and  from  the  analogy  of  other  facts,  I 
am  led  to  believe  that  the  above-mentioned  sort  of  communication  might 
be  extended  to  two  or  three  miles,  and  probably  to  a much  greater  dis- 
tance.” X 

* Travels  during  the  years  1787,  1788,  and  1789,  in  the  Kingdom  of  France.  By  Arthur 
Young.  2 vols.  8vo.  Dublin,  1793,  vol.  i,  p.  135.  Of  the  work  as  republished  in  Pink- 
erton’s Collection  of  Voyages  and  Travels , 4to.  London,  1809,  vol.  iv,  p.  139. 

t Voigt’s  Magazin,  etc.  1794,  vol.  ix,  part  1,  p.  183;  also  Moigno’s  Telegraphie 
Jfilectrique,  part  ii,  chap.  1,  p.  61. 

\A  Complete  Treatise  on  Electricity,  in  3 vols.  8vo.  London,  1795;  vol.  iii,  note  No. 
viii,  pp.  295,  294.  The  first  two  volumes  of  this  work  had  passed  through  three  earlier 
editions. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


9 


1798.  D.  F.  Salva,  in  Spain,  appears  to  have  successfully  worked  an 
electric  telegraph  through  the  unprecedented  distance  of  twenty-six 
miles.  “The  Madrid  Gazette  of  November  25,  1796,  states  that  the 
Prince  de  la  Paix,  having  heard  that  M.  D.  F.  Salva  had  read  to  the 
Academy  of  Sciences  a memoir  upon  the  application  of  electricity  to  tele- 
graphing, and  presented  at  the  same  time  an  electric  telegraph  of  his 
own  invention,  desired  to  examine  it,*  when  being  delighted  with  the 
promptness  and  facility  with  which  it  worked,  he  presented  it  before  the 
king  and  court,  operating  it  himself.  Some  useful  trials  were  made  and 
published  in  Voigt’s  Magazine.  Two  years  after,  the  Infanta  Don  Anto- 
nio constructed  a telegraph  of  great  extent  on  a large  scale,  by  which 
the  young  prince  was  informed  at  night  of  news  in  which  he  was  much 
interested.  He  also  invited  and  entertained  Salva  at  court.  According 
to  Humboldt,  a telegraph  of  this  description  was  established  in  1798, 
from  Madrid  to  Aranjuez,  a distance  of  26  miles.”  # 

1816.  Francis  Eonalds  constructed  at  Hammersmith,  England,  an 
experimental  telegraph  line  of  a single  wire,  operated  by  an  electrical 
machine,  or  small  Leyden  jar.  “ He  proved  the  practicability  of  such  a 
scheme  by  insulating  eight  miles  of  wire  on  his  lawn  at  Hammersmith. 
In  this  case  the  wire  wTas  insulated  in  the  air  by  silk  strings.  . . . 

Mr.  Ronalds  fixed  a circular  brass  plate  upon  the  seconds  arbor  of  a 
clock  which  beat  dead  seconds.  This  plate  was  divided  into  twenty 
equal  parts,  each  division  being  worked  by  a figure,  a letter,  and  a pre- 
paratory sign.  The  figures  were  divided  into  two  series  of  the  units, 
and  the  letters  were  arranged  alphabetically,  omitting  J,  q,  v,  w,  x, 
and  z.  In  front  of  this  was  fixed  another  brass  jjlate  (which  could  be 
occasionally  turned  round  by  hand),  and  which  had  an  aperture  that 
would  just  exhibit  one  of  the  figures,  letters,  and  preparatory  signs.  In 
front  of  this  plate  was  suspended  a pith-ball  electrometer  from  a wire 
which  was  insulated  and  which  communicated  on  one  side  with  a glass 
cylinder  machine.  At  the  farther  end  of  the  wire  was  an  apparatus 
exactly  the  same  as  the  one  now  described,  and  the  clocks  were  ad- 
justed to  as  perfect  synchronism  as  possible.  Hence  it  is  manifest  that 
when  the  wire  was  charged  by  the  machine  at  either  end,  the  electro- 
meters at  both  ends  diverged,  and  when  it  was  discharged  they  collapsed 
at  the  same  instant ; consequently  if  it  was  discharged  at  the  moment 
when  a given  letter,  figure,  and  sign  on  the  plate  appeared  through 
the  aperture,  the  same  letter,  figure,  and  sign  would  appear  also  at  the 

* The  Electro-Magnetic  Telegraph,  by  Laurence  Turnbull,  8vo.  2d  ed.  Philada.  1853, 
pp.  21,  22.  Voigt’s  Magazin,  etc.  vol.  xi,  part  4.  The  same  telegraphic  feat  is  attrib- 
uted to  Betancourt.  “ Gauss  makes  mention  of  a communication  from  Humboldt, 
according  to  which  Betancourt,  in  1798,  established  a communication  between  Madrid 
and  Aranjuez,  a distance  of  26  miles,  by  means  of  a wire  through  which  a Leyden  jar 
used  to  be  discharged,  which  was  intended  to  be  used  as  a telegraphic  signal.”  (Stur- 
geon’s Annals  of  Electricity,  etc.  March,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  446.)  This  is  probably  a mis- 
apprehension ; as  Augustine  Betancourt  (more  correctly  Bethencourt),  a Spanish  engi- 
neer, in  1798,  devised  and  exhibited  to  the  National  Institute  an  improvement  in  the 
mechanical  semaphore.  ( Bre wster’s  Edin h urgh  Encyclopaedia,  1830,  art.  “Telegraph,’ 
vol.  xviii,  p.  535.) 


10 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


other  clock  ; so  that  by  means  of  such  discharges  at  one  station,  and 
by  marking  down  the  letters,  figures,  and  signs  seen  at  the  other,  any 
required  words  could  be  spelt.’7* 

“ He  also  made  the  trial  with  525  feet  of  buried  wire.  With  this  view  he 
dug  a trench  four  feet  deep,  in  which  he  laid  a trough  of  wood  two  inches 
square,  well  lined  both  within  and  without  with  pitch ; and  within  this 
trough  were  placed  thick  glass  tubes  through  which  the  wire  ran.  The 
junction  of  the  glass  tubes  was  surrounded  with  short  and  wider  tubes  of 
glass,  the  ends  of  which  were  sealed  up  with  soft  wax.”  This  form  of 
conductor  was  not  found  to  operate  very  satisfactorily,  and  the  inventor 
on  theoretical  grounds  did  not  think  such  an  arrangement  adapted  to 
the  instantaneous  electrical  transmission  required  by  his  system. 

Mr.  Ronalds,  in  1823,  published  a full  account  of  his  telegraph,  f In 
1871,  very  nearly  half  a century  later,  as  Sir  Francis  Ronalds,  he  pub* 
fished  a new  edition  of  this  interesting  work;  and  a review  of  it  in 
u Nature”  gives  this  presentation  of  the  scheme:  “Sir  Francis,  before 
1823,  sent  intelligible  messages  through  more  than  eight  miles  of  wire 
insulated  and  suspended  in  the  air.  His  elementary  signal  was  the  di- 
vergence of  the  pith-balls  of  a Canton’s  electrometer,  produced  by  the 
communication  of  a statical  charge  to  the  wire.  He  used  synchronous 
rotation  of  lettered  dials  at  each  end  of  the  line,  and  charged  the  wire 
at  the  sending  end  whenever  the  letter  to  be  indicated  passed  an  open- 
ing provided  in  a cover ; the  electrometer  at  the  far  end  then  diverged, 
and  thus  informed  the  receiver  of  the  message  which  letter  was  desig- 
nated by  the  sender.  The  dials  never  stopped,  and  any  slight  want  of 
synchronism  was  corrected  by  moving  the  cover.”  J 

This  very  ingenious  device  of  synchronous  rotation  at  the  opposite 
stations  presents  the  earliest  example  of  a dial  telegraph,  or  of  a letter 
indicator  employing  but  a single  wire.  About  forty  years  later,  or  in 
1855,  this  system  was  successfully  applied  by  Mr.  David  E.  Hughes,  of 
Kentucky,  to  a letter -printing  telegraph  of  remarkable  rapidity  and  ac- 
curacy. § 


1828.  “ Harrison  Gray  Dyar,  an  American,  constructed  a telegraph 

in  1827-’28,  at  the  race-course  on  Long  Island,  and  supported  his  wires 
by  glass  insulators  fixed  on  trees  and  poles.  By  means  of  common  elec- 
tricity acting  upon  litmus  paper  he  produced  a red  mark.  The  difference 
of  time  between  the  sparks  indicated  different  letters  arranged  in  an  ar- 

* Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  7th  ed.  1842,  vol.  viii,  p.  662. — 8tli  ed.  1854,  vol.  viii,  p.  627. 

\ Descriptions  of  an  Electrical  Telegraph ; and  some  other  Electrical  Apparatus.  By 
Francis  Ronalds.  8vo.  London,  1823. 

X Nature.  London,  Nov.  23,  1871,  vol.  v,  p.  59. 

§A  second  type  of  dial  telegraph  was  invented  by  Prof.  Charles  Wheatstone  in 
1839,  in  which  the  dial  (or  index)  was  rotated  step  by  step  by  means  of  successive 
impulses  of  the  current  on  an  electro-magnet,  which  operated  a toothed  escapement 
on  the  axis  of  the  dial  or  index ; — the  indicated  letter  or  figure  being  stopped  as  long 
as  desired.  In  this  case,  the  character  was  determined  solely  by  the  number  of 
electric  impulses  transmitted.  This  system  was  in  1846,  made  "the  basis  of  a highly 
original  letter-printing  telegraph,  by  Mr.  Royal  E.  House,  of  Vermont ; preceding  that 
of  Mr.  Hughes,  as  will  be  observed,  nearly  ten  years. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


11 


bitrary  alphabet,  and  the  paper  was  moved  by  the  hand.”  * Mr.  Dyar 
is  described  by  Dr.  Luther  Y.  Bell  as  “a  man  of  the  highest  inventive 
skill  and  scientific  attainments.”  His  experimental  line  (of  a single  wire) 
was  several  miles  long;  and  the  chemical  record  of  the  signals  transmitted 
through  it,  was  by  the  testimony  of  those  who  witnessed  its  operations, 
eminently  distinct  and  satisfactory.  The  following  is  the  account  of  his 
enterprise,  given  by  the  inventor  himself  in  1849,  some  Twenty  years  after- 
ward : 

u I invented  a plan  of  a telegraph  which  should  be  independent  of  day 
nr  night  or  weather,  which  should  extend  from  town  to  town  or  city  to 
city,  without  any  intermediary  agency,  by  means  of  an  insulated  wire 
in  the  air,  suspended  on  poles,  and  through  which  wire  I intended  to 
send  strokes  of  electricity  in  such  a manner  as  that  the  diverse  distances 
of  time  separating  the  divers  sparks  should  represent  the  different  letters 
of  the  alphabet  and  stops  between  the  words,  etc.  This  absolute  or  this 
relative  difference  of  time  between  the  several  sparks  I intended  to  take 
off  from  an  electric  machine  by  a little  mechanical  contrivance  regulated 
by  a pendulum,  and  the  sparks  were  intended  to  be  recorded  upon  a 
moving  or  a revolving  sheet  of  moistened  litmus  paper,  which  by  the  forma- 
tion of  nitric  acid  by  the  spark  in  the  air  in  its  passsage  through  the 
paper,  would  leave  a red  spot  for  each  spark  on  this  blue  test-paper. 
- . . To  carry  out  my  invention  I associated  myself  with  a Mr. 
Brown,  of  Providence,  who  gave  me  certain  sums  of  money  to  become 
associated  with  me  in  the  invention.  We  employed  a Mr  Connel,  of  New 
York,  to  aid  in  getting  the  capital  wanted  to  carry  the  wires  to  Phila- 
delphia. This  we  considered  as  accomplished : but  before  beginning  upon 
the  long  wire,  it  was  decided  that  we  should  try  some  miles  of  it  on  Long 
Island.  Accordingly  I obtained  some  fine  card  wire,  intending  to  run 
it  several  times  around  the  race-course  on  the  Island.  We  put  up  this 
wire  (that  is,  Mr.  Brown  and  myself)  at  different  lengths,  in  curves  and 
straight  lines,  by  suspending  it  from  stake  to  stake  and  tree  to  tree  un- 
til we  concluded  that  our  experiments  justified  our  undertaking  to  carry 
it  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia.  At  this  moment  our  agent  brought 
a suit  or  summons  against  me  for  20,000  dollars  for  agencies  and  services, 
which  I found  was  done  to  extort  a concession  of  a share  of  the  whole 
project.”  Failing  in  this  prosecution,  the  unprincipled  agent  obtained 
a writ  against  the  two  partners  on  a charge  of  conspiracy  to  carry  on 
secret  communication  between  the  cities ! and  he  thus  effectually  put  an 
end  to  the  enterprise,  without  the  formality  of  a judicial  trial  on  this 
novel  accusation,  t 

These  practical  illustrations  of  early  electric  telegraphy,  including 
successful  workings  of  both  the  dial  and  the  chemical  forms  of  the  tele- 
graph without  the  use  of  galvanism,  serve  to  show  that  the  agency  is  by 

’ * Turnbull's  Electro- Magnetic  Telegraph,  8vo.  Philadelphia,  1st  ed.  1852,  p.  6 ; 2d  ed. 
1853,  p.  22. 

1 Prescott’s  Hist.  Electr.  Telegraph,  1860,  chap,  xxi,  pp.  427,  423. 


12 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


no  means  the  trivial  and  inefficient  one  so  often  represented  by  modern 
writers.  On  the  contrary,  but  for  the  practical  difficulty  of  perfect  and 
constant  insulation,  owing  to  the  intense  self- repulsion  of  mechanical 
electricity  and  the  reaction  and  retardation  from  induction  currents  in 
png  lines  of  coated  wire,  this  method  would  really  constitute  an  eco- 
nomical and  satisfactory  medium  of  distant  communication. 

Steinheil  in  reference  to  this  subject  remarks : “All  these  experiments 
put  it  beyond  a doubt  that  frictional  electricity  may  be  employed  for 
giving  signals  at  any  distances,  and  that  when  these  signals  are  properly 
contrived  they  offer  convenient  means  of  telegraphic  intercourse.  Fric- 
tional electricity  has  besides  as  Gauss  has  already  observed,  the  great 
advantage  of  not  losing  any  of  its  force  by  increasing  the  length  of  the 
conducting  wire,  inasmuch  as  the  whole  of  the  electricity  of  one  coating 
of  the  jar  must  traverse  the  entire  length  of  the  wire  (be  it  what  it  may) 
to  neutralize  that  of  the  other  coating.’7* 

II. — TELEGRAPHS  BY  GALVANISM. 

The  introduction  of  the  galvanic  battery  by  Volta  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  i>resent  century  f led  many  to  experiment  with  its  peculiar 
current  as  a means  of  telegraphing.  The  only  practicable  forms  of 
simple  galvanic  telegraphs,  are  those  whose  indications  are  given  by 
chemical  decompositions,  and  which  thus  form  the  class  commonly  known 
as  the 1 i electro-chemical 77  ; and  as  these  chemical  indications  usually  leave 
permanent  markings,  the  class  is  also  one  of  recording  telegraphs. 

1808.  Dr.  Samuel  Thomas  von  Soemmering,  of  Munich,  appears  to 
have  been  the  first  to  apply  Volta’s  invention  to  this  purpose.  “As  long 
ago  as  in  1807,  Soemmering  erected  in  the  apartments  of  the  Academy 
of  Sciences  at  Munich  a galvanic  telegraph,  of  which  he  has  pub. 
lished  a detailed  description  in  the  Philosophical  Transactions  of  Ba- 
varia. [Miinchner  DenJcschriften  der  Konigliehen  Akctdemie  der  Wis - 
senschaften  fur  1809,  1810.  Math.  phys.  Olasse,  p.  401.]  He  em- 
ployed the  energy  of  a powerful  voltaic  pile  to  bring  about  the 
decomposition  of  water  by  means  of  thirty-five  gold  pins  immersed  in 
an  oblong  glass  trough.” | Each  of  these  gilt  electrodes  was  in  con- 
nection with  one  of  the  thirty-five  wires  forming  the  line,  and  was  cov. 
ered  with  an  inverted  test-tube  filled  with  water,  resting  on  a submerged 
shelf  in  the  oblong  trough,  as  a gas-receiver.  These  small  receivers 
with  their  inclosed  gilt  pins  or  electrodes  arranged  in  a row,  repre- 
sented 25  letters  and  10  numerals.  Such  being  the  disposition  at  the 
receiving  end,  the  thirty-five  line  wires  at  the  transmitting  end  were 
each  secured  to  a separate  perforated  brass  plate.  On  connecting  the 

* Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity,  etc.  March  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  446. 

t Volta’s  description  of  his  battery  is  given  in  a “Letter  to  Sir  Joseph  Banks,” 
president  of  the  Royal  Society  of  London.  {Phil.  Trans.  R.  S.  read  June  26,  1800,  vol. 
xc,  pp.  403-431.) 

t Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity,  etc.  Mur.  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  447. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


13 


respective  poles  of  the  battery  with  any  two  of  the  line  wires  by  means 
of  two  attached  metallic  pins  held  in  the  hands  and  inserted  in  the 
holes  of  their  terminal  plates,  the  current  was  established,  and  bubbles 
of  hydrogen  and  oxygen  were  at  once  evolved  in  the  corresponding  let- 
tered tubes.  A system  of  syllabic  communication  and  reading  was  pro- 
vided, in  which  the  hydrogen  element  should  be  first  noted.* 

Very  shortly  after  his  first  successful  working  of  this  telegraph,  Soem- 
mering interposed  in  the  galvanic  circuit  two  thousand  feet  of  insulated 
wire,  wound  around  a glass  cylinder,  without  impairing  his  decomposi- 
tions. He  found  no  appreciable  retardation  in  the  action  of  the  electrodes. 
tl  The  evolution  of  the  gas  through  this  considerable  length  of  wire  ap- 
peared to  begin  as  quickly  as  if  the  effect  had  only  to  traverse  two  feet.”f 
In  an  u Historical  account  of  the  introduction  of  the  galvanic  and 
electro-magnetic  telegraph”  presented  to  the  Imperial  Academy  of 
Sciences  at  St.  Petersburg,  by  Dr.  Hamel,  of  that  city,  a very  full  and 
interesting  narrative  is  given  of  Soemmering’s  experiments,  compiled 
from  original  documents  $ f from  which  the  following  extracts  are  made  : 

u On  the  22d  of  July,  1809,  his  apparatus  was  already  so  far  advanced 
that  it  was  fit  to  work.  He  however  went  on  making  still  further  im- 
provements, and  it  was  only  on  the  6th  of  August  that  he  considered 
the  telegraph  quite  completed.  He  was  much  pleased  with  its  perform- 
ance, being  able  to  work  through  724  feet  of  wire.  . . . Two  days 

later,  he  could  already  telegraph  through  1,000  feet,  and  on  the  18th  of 
August  through  as  much  as  2,000  feet  of  wire.  On  the  29th  of  August 
he  exhibited  the  telegraph  in  action  before  a meeting  of  the  Academy 
of  Sciences  in  Munich.”  A year  later  he  first  effected  a satisfactory 
arrangement  of  premonitory  alarm  or  attention  call.  u On  the  23d  of 
August,  1810,  Scemmering  succeeded  in  inventing  a contrivance  for 
sounding  an  alarm,  which  answered  perfectly  well.”  (p.  596.) 

“ In  September,  1811,  Scemmering  simplified  his  telegraph  considera- 
bly $ he  reduced  the  number  of  wires  in  his  conducting  cord  from  35  to 
27.  . . . On  the  1st  of  February,  1812,  Prince  Karl  Theodor,  the 
second  son  of  King  Maximilian  I,  honored  Scemmering  with  a visit  to 
see  the  telegraph.  On  the  4th  of  February,  1812,  Scemmering  announced 
that  he  was  able  to  telegraph  through  4,000  feet  of  wire,  and  on  the  15th 
of  March  he  telegraphed  even  through  10,000  feet.  ” (p.  597.)  This  was 
nearly  two  miles  of  wire,  but  wound  on  reels. 

This  complex  and  inconvenient  arrangement  of  signaling  by  the  de- 
composition of  water,  would  hardly  seem  to  offer  a practical  method  of 
telegraphy.  Yet  the  system  was  earnestly  prosecuted  by  its  inventor  for 

* SchweiggeEs  Journal  fiir  Chemie  und  Physilc,  1811,  vol.  ii,  part  2,  pp.  217-213:  (from 
the  Memoirs  of  the  “ Konigliche  Akademie  der  Wissensehaftenf  at  Munich,  1810.)  Also, 
Polytechnisches  Central- Blatt,  June,  1838,  Jahrgang  iv,  b,  i,  pp.  482-484. 

t Munchner  Denlcschriften  der  Koniglichen  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften  fiir  1812.  In  this 
experiment,  the  self-induction  of  the  conducting  coil  probably  increased  somewhat 
the  effect. 

„ t Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  London,  July  22,  and  29,  1859,  vol.  vii,  No.  348,  pp. 
595-599,  and  No.  349,  pp.  605-610. 


14 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


many  years,  and  attracted  considerable  attention  $ and  had  no  simpler 
device  been  discovered  it  might  possibly  have  won  its  way  into  use.  It 
is  remarkable  that  some  seven  or  eight  years  later  a Philadelphian  inde- 
pendently proposed  the  same  scheme. 

1816.  Dr.  John  Redman  Coxe,  of  Philadelphia,  professor  of  chemistry 
in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  suggested  the  employment  of  wires 
for  communicating  intelligence  by  a galvanic  current,  arranged  either  to 
decompose  water  in  tubes,  (Soemmering’s  plan,  of  which  he  seems  to  have 
been  unaware,)  or  to  decompose  metallic  salts.*  As  an  untried  sugges- 
tion, this  has  been  noticed  only  because  the  latter  project  was  afterward 
succes  sfully  developed  and  executed  by  others. 

1828.  Victor  Triboaillet  de  Saint  Amand  proposed  to  establish  a gal- 
vanic telegraph  line  of  a single  wire  from  Paris  to  Brussels,  the  con- 
ducting wire  to  be  varnished  with  shellac,  wound  with  silk,  coated  with 
resin,  inclosed  in  sections  of  glass  tube  carefully  luted  with  a resin,  the 
whole  substantially  wrapped  and  water-proofed,  and  finally  to  be  buried 
some  feet  deep  in  the  earth.  The  signaling  device  is  somewhat  obscure, 
as  while  a strong  battery  is  the  source  of  the  current,  the  receiving  in- 
strument is  an  electrometer.!  This  project,  also  belonging  to  the  purely 
speculative  class,  scarcely  deserves  a notice. 

1843.  Mr.  Robert  Smith,  of  Blackford,  Scotland,  devised  an  experi- 
mental galvano-chemical  telegraph  carrying  out  practically  the  sug- 
gestion offered  by  Dr.  Coxe  in  1816.  A set  of  iron  type  at  the  receiving 
station,  each  connected  by  separate  wires  with  a corresponding  circuit- 
key  at  the  transmitting  station,  was  so  arranged  with  reference  to  a 
clock-moved  band  of  paper  wet  with  a solution  of  ferro-cyanide  of  potas- 
sium, that  when  the  current  was  passed  through  any  special  circuit,  it 
impressed  a blue  letter  on  the  band.  UA  paper  containing  an  account 
of  this  telegraph  was  read  before  the  Boyal  Scottish  Society  of  Arts  on 
the  27th  of  March,  1843  5 reported  on  by  a committee,  and  approved 
the  12th  of  June  following.  Since  that  time  many  trials  have  been 
made,  and  various  improvements  in  its  construction  have  also  been 
introduced  by  the  inventor.”  f 

Two  or  three  years  later  Mr.  Smith  reduced  his  line  to  a single  circuit 
of  two  wires ; and  the  registering  device  at  the  receiving  station  con- 
sisted of  a fillet  or  ribbon  of  plain  calico  wound  on  a roller  placed  in  a 
trough  filled  with  a solution  of  ferro-cyanide  of  potassium  containing  a 
few  drops  of  nitric  acid,  and  unrolled  by  the  motion  of  clock-work  over 
a leaden  cylinder  with  which  one  of  the  iron  wires  of  the  line  was  in 
connection,  while  the  end  of  the  other  iron  wire  rested  on  the  wetted 

^Thomson’s  Annals  of  Philosophy,  Feb.  1816,  voL.vii,  p.  162. 

t Report  of  Academy  of  Industry,  Paris.  Quoted  from  A.  Vail’s  Electro -Magnetic  Tele- 
graph, 1845,  p.  135.  Also  Turnbull’s  Electro-Magnetic  Telegraph,  2d  ed.  1853,  p.  56. 

X Practical  Mechanic  and  Engineer's  Magazine,  Glasgow,  Nov.  1845,  vol.  i,  2d  series, 
p.  36. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


15 


calico  immediately  over  tlie  cylinder.  On  every  completion  of  the  cir- 
cuit at  the  transmitting  station,  a blue  mark  was  thus  imprinted  on  the 
moving  cloth  by  the  electrical  decomposition,  and  the  succession  of 
marks  of  differing  lengths  and  intervals  formed  the  system  of  signals. 
This  telegraph  was  found  to  work  satisfactorily  through  eighteen  hun- 
dred yards  of  wire  fence.* 

1846.  Mr.  Alexander  Bain,  of  Edinburgh,  obtained  an  English  patent 
for  a galvano-chemical  telegraph,  which  while  exhibiting  considerable 
ingenuity  in  its  mechanical  devices,  imitated  very  closely  in  its  chemical 
record  the  previous  system  of  Smith.  “ The  chemical  solution  preferred 
for  the  preparation  of  the  paper  consists  of  sulphuric  acid  and  a solution 
of  prussiate  of  potassa.”  f 

1849.  Prof.  Samuel  E.  B.  Morse,  of  New  York,  obtained  an  American 
patent  for  a galvano-chemical  telegraph,  also  very  similar  to  that  of 
Smith,  employing  like  him  a single  circuit,  and  specifying,  among  sev- 
eral metallic  salts  which  might  be  used,  solutions  of  iodide  of  potassium, 
of  iodide  of  tin,  and  of  acetate  of  lead,  with  nitrate  of  potassa.  The  in- 
ventor added : “I  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  I do  not  confine  myself 
to  the  use  of  the  substances  I have  mentioned,  but  mean  to  comprehend 
the  use  of  any  known  substance  already  proved  to  be  easily  decomposed 
by  the  electric  current.”  f 

III. — TELEGRAPHS  BY  GAL VANO -MAGNETISM. 

Meanwhile  the  rapid  awakening  of  attention  among  physicists  to  the 
magnetic  relation  of  the  galvanic  current,  and  the  production  of  the  gal- 
vanometer, at  once  indicated  a new  and  promising  method  of  signaling 
to  a distance  by  galvanic  agency. 

The  Galvanometer. — In  1820,  Hans  Christian  Oersted,  professor  of  nat- 
ural philosophy  at  Copenhagen,  announced  through  various  European 
journals  his  discovery  that  if  a straight  conjunctive  wire  through  which 
a galvanic  current  is  passing  “be  placed  horizontally  above  the  mag- 
netic needle  and  parallel  to  it  . . . the  needle  will  be  moved,  and 
the  end  next  the  negative  side  of  the  battery  will  go  westward.  . . . 

If  the  uniting  wire  be  placed  in  a horizontal  plane  under  the  magnetic 
needle  all  the  effects  are  the  same  as  when  it  is  above  the  needle,  only 
they  are  in  an  opposite  direction.”  § 

Although  the  directive  influence  of  a galvanic  conductor  on  a mag- 

* Practical  Mechanic  and  Engineers’  Magazine , June,  1846,  vol.  i,  2d  series,  pp.  239,  240. 

t English  patent  of  A.  Bain,  Dec.  12,  1846,  No.  11480. 

X American  patent  of  S.  F.  B.  Morse,  May  1,  1849,  No.  6420. 

$ Thomson’s  Annals  of  Philosophy,  Oct.  1820,  vol.  xvl,  pp.  274,275.  (Also,  Journal, 
de  Physique,  etc.  1820,  vol.  xci,  pp.  72-76 ; Annales  de  Chimie  et  de  Physique,  1820,  vol. 
xiv,  pp.  417-425;  Bibliotheque  XJniverselle  des  Sciences,  etc.  1820,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  274-284; 
Annales  Gtfne'rales  des  Sciences  Physiques,  1820,  vol.  v,  pp.  259-264;  Gilbert’s  Annalen 
der  Physik,  1820,  vol.  lxvi,  pp.  295-304;  Schweigger’s  Journal  fiir  Chernie  und  Physik , 
1820,  vol.  xxix,  pp.  275-281;  Giornale  Arcadico  di  Scienze,  etc.  1820,  vol.  viii,  pp. 
174-178;  Brugnatelli’s  Giornale  di  Fisica,  etc.  1820,  pp.  335-342.) 


16 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


netic  needle,  was  observed  and  announced  by  an  Italian  savant,  Gian 
Domenico  Romagnosi,  of  Trent,  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  cen- 
tury, (shortly  after  the  production  of  the  galvanic  battery  by  Volta,) 
this  important  phenomenon  attracted  no  attention,  and  produced  no  re- 
sults, until  it  was  republished  two  decades  later  by  the  Danish  physicist.* 

In  the  same  year — almost  immediately  after  Oersted’s  announcement, 
Prof.  Johann  S.  C.  Schweigger,  of  Halle,  made  a great  improvement  on 
his  galvano-magnetic  indicator  (of  a single  wire  circuit),  by  giving  the 
insulated  wire  a number  of  turns  around  an  elongated  frame  longitudi- 
nally inclosing  the  compass-needle,  and  by  thus  multiplying  the  effect  of 
the  galvanic  circuits  upon  the  sensibility  of  the  needle  converted  it  into 
a real  measuring  instrument, — a u galvanometer.”! 

This  delicate  indicator  at  once  suggested  a new  mode  of  galvanic  tele- 
graphing. In  a memoir  read  to  the  u Royal  Academy  of  Sciences,”  at 
Paris,  October  2,  1820,  Andre  Marie  Ampere,  affirming  u the  possibility 
of  deflecting  a magnetic  needle  at  a great  distance  from  the  pile,  through 
a very  long  conducting  wire,”  remarked  : u This  experiment,  suggested 
to  me  by  the  illustrious  Laplace,  was  completely  successful.  . . . 
Prom  the  success  of  the  experiment  ” he  added,  u it  is  feasible  by  means 
of  as  many  conducting  wires  and  magnetic  needles  as  there  are  letters, 
(each  letter  being  assigned  to  a separate  needle,)  and  by  help  of  a bat- 
tery at  a distance,  with  its  poles  alternately  connected  with  the  extrem- 
ities of  each  conductor,  to  establish  a kind  of  telegraph  adapted  to 
transmit  over  intervening  obstacles  whatever  information  may  be  de- 
sired to  the  person  observing  the  letters  of  the  needles.  A set  of  keys 
near  the  battery,  bearing  corresponding  letters  and  making  connection 
by  their  depression,  would  offer  a facile  means  of  correspondence ; re- 


*As  early  as  180*2,  eighteen  years  before  Oersted’s  discovery,  M.  Romagnosi,  a publi- 
cist and  physicist  of  Trent,  observed  the  deflection  of  the  magnetic  needle  when 
placed  near  a parallel  conductor  of  the  galvanic  current.  An  account  of  this  dis- 
covery was  published  in  the  Gazzetta  cli  Trento , August  3,  1802.  See  “Supplement,” 
Note  B. 

t “ Additions  to  Oersted’s  Electro-magnetic  Experiments,”  a memoir  read  at  the  Natur- 
forsclienden  Gesellscliaft  at  Halle,  September  16  and  November  4,  1820.  An  abstract  of 
this  paper  was  published  in  the  Allgemeine  Literatur-Zeitung  of  Halle,  (4to,)  November, 
1820,  No.  296,  vol.  iii,  col.  1321-624.  The  full  memoir  appeared  in  the  Journal  fur 
Chetniennd  Pluysik,  1821,  vol.  xxxi,  pp.  1-17;  and  “Additional  Remarks,”  etc.  by  Dr. 
Schweigger,  in  the  same  volume,  pp.  35-41. 

A galvanometer  of  somewhat  different  form,  having  a vertical  helix  and  employing 
an  unmagnetized  needle,  was  very  shortly  afterward  independently  devised  by  Johann 
Christian  Poggendorff,  of  Berlin ; and  as  he  preceded  Schweigger  in  publishing  an  ac- 
count of  it,  he  is  sometimes  regarded  as  the  original  inventor.  ( Edinburgh  Philosophi- 
cal Journal,  July,  1821,  vol.  v,  p.  113.)  Schweigger  designated  his  device  an  “ Electro- 
magnetic Multiplicator  ” ; Poggendorff  designated  his  arrangement  a “ Galvano-mag- 
netic Condensator.”  Professor  Oersted  remarks,  “Immediately  after  the  discovery  of 
electro-magnetism,  M.  Schweigger,  professor  at  Halle,  invented  an  apparatus  admirably 
adapted  for  exhibiting  by  means  of  the  magnetic  needle,  the  feeblest  electric  currents. 

M.  Poggendorff,  a distinguished  young  savant  of  Berlin,  constructed  an 
electro-magnetic  multiplier  very  shortly  after  M.  Schweigger,  with  which  he  made 
some  striking  experiments.  M.  Poggendorlf’s  work  having  been  cited  in  a book  on 
electro-magnetism  by  the  celebrated  M.  Ernan,  (published  immediately  after  the  dis- 
covery of  these  phenomena,)  became  known  to  several  philosophers  before  that  of  M. 
Schweigger.”  ( Annales  de  Chimie  et  de  Physique,  1823,  vol.  xxii,  pp.  358-360.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH.  17 

quiring  only  the  time  to  touch  each  key  at  the  one  station,  and  to  read 
each  letter  at  the  other.”* 

Ingenious  as  this  early  proposal  of  an  electro-magnetic  telegraph  ap. 
pears,  it  really  presents  essentially  hut  the  substitution  of  the  new-found 
galvanometer  for  the  old  electrometer  at  the  receiving  station,  as  first 
employed  by  Lesage,  nearly  half  a century  previously. 

1823.  The  first  to  develop  practically,  Ampere’s  suggestion  of  a gal- 
vanometer telegraph,  was  the  Russian  Baron  Paul  Ludovitscli  Schilling, 
of  Cronstadt.  The  personal  friend  of  Soemmering,  he  became  from  an 
early  date  warmly  interested  in  the  galvanic  telegraph  5 and  not  long 
after  Schweigger’s  invention  of  the  galvanometer,  he  appears  to  have 
commenced  his  experiments  in  the  direction  pointed  out  by  Ampere. 
His  countryman,  the  venerable  Hr.  Hamel,  of  St.  Petersburg,  Avho  en- 
joyed his  acquaintance,  gave  in  1859,  in  his  “ Historical  account  of  the 
introduction  of  the  galvanic  and  electro-magnetic  Telegraph,”  the  follow- 
ing interesting  particulars  of  Schilling’s  early  associations  and  pursuits:! 

“At  the  time  when  Soemmering  became  a member  of  the  Academy  of 
Sciences  at  Munich,  in  1805,  there  was  attached  to  the  Russian  embassy 
in  that  capital,  the  Baron  Pavel  Ludovitscli  Schilling,  of  Cronstadt. 
About  a year  after  the  invention  of  the  telegraph  [by  the  former]  Schil- 
ling saw  experiments  performed  with  it.  He  was  so  iorcibly  struck  with 
the  probability  of  a very  great  usefulness  of  the  invention  that  from  that 
day  galvanism  and  its  applications  became  one  of  his  favorite  studies.” 

“I11  the  spring  of  1812,  Baron  Schilling  was  endeavoring  to  contrive 
a conducting  cord  sufficiently  insulated  that  it  might  convey  the  gal- 
vanic current  not  only  through  wet  earth,  but  also  through  long  dis- 
tances of  water.  The  war  then  impending  between  France  and  Russia 
made  Baron  Schilling  desirous  of  finding  a means  by  which  such  a con- 
ducting cord  should  serve  for  telegraphic  correspondence  between  for- 
tified places  and  the  field,  and  likewise  for  exploding  powder  mines 
across  rivers.  ...  In  the  autumn  of  1812,  he  actually  exploded 
powder  mines  across  the  river  Neva,  near  St.  Petersburg. 

Baron  Schilling  lias  told  me  that  during  his  stay  at  Paris,  he  with  his 
subaqueous  conductor,  several  times  (to  the  astonishment  of  the  lookers- 
on)  ignited  gunpowder  across  the  river  Seine.” 

“On  the  29th  of  December,  1815,  there  came  to  pay  his  respects  to 
Soemmering  (while  Baron  Schilling  was  just  with  him)  the  well-known 
natural  p>liilosoplier  Johann  Salomon  Chistian  Scliweigger,  then  pro- 
fessor of  natural  philosophy  and  chemistry  at  the  Physico-technical  In- 
stitute at  Nuremberg,  who  was  on  his  way  to  Paris  and  London : (in  which 

* Annales  de  Chimie  etde  Physique,  1820,  vol.  xv,  pp.  72,  73. 

1 The  writer  states:  “Letters  show  that  the  cordial  friendship  between  Soemmering 
and  Baron  Schilling  continued  unchanged  to  the  time  of  his  decease  in  1830.”  Schil- 
ling died  August  7,  1837.  Dr.  Hamel  himself  had  the  fortune  to  he  personally  ac- 
quainted with  Oersted,  Sehweigger,  Ampere,  Arago,  Soemmering,  Schilling,  and  other 
electro-magnetic  and  telegraphic  celebrities. 

2 E T 


18 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH, 


latter  place  I had  afterward  the  pleasure  of  making  his  acquaintance.) 

. . . Baron  Schilling  having  made  at  Soemmering’s  the  acquaint- 
ance of  Schweigger,  of  course  could  not  forsee  that  one  day  an  invention 
of  this  gentleman,  the  4 multiplier,’  would  enable  him  to  make  at  St. 
Petersburg,  the  first  electro-magnetic  telegraph.”* 

It  is  impossible,  in  the  scarcity  of  documentary  evidence,  to  ascer- 
tain at  what  date  Schilling’s  long  contemplated  project  of  a galvan- 
ometer telegraph  (designed  as  an  improvement  on  the  galvanic  telegraph 
of  his  friend  Soemmering)  was  first  reduced  to  a practical  or  working 
form : but  it  was  at  least  as  early  as  the  year  1823,  when  Schilling  con- 
structed at  St.  Petersburg  an  electro-magnetic  telegraph  apparatus  whose 
signals  were  produced  by  five  galvanometer  needles,  each  provided  with 
its  own  independent  galvanic  circuit.  Schilling  was  enabled  to  effect 
his  great  simplification  of  an  original  alphabet  of  circuits,  by  the  inge- 
nious expedient  of  giving  to  each  needle  a positive  and  negative  motion  by 
means  of  reversed  currents,  and  then  of  combining  two  or  more  of  these 
signals.  Whether  this  was  really  Schilling’s  first  form  of  apparatus  is 
very  doubtful ; but  it  is  at  least  certain  that  he  exhibited  an  operative 
instrument  before  the  Emperor  Alexander  in  1824,  or  in  1825.f 
Dr.  Hamel  remarks : 44  It  was  reserved  for  Baron  Schilling  at  St.  Peters- 
bnrg  to  make  the  first  electro-magnetic  telegraph.  Having  become  (as 
we  know)  through  Soemmering,  at  Munich,  passionately  fond  of  the  art 
of  telegraphing  by  means  of  galvanism,  he  now  used  for  it  the  deflection 
of  the  needle,  which  he  placed  within  the  4 multiplier’  of  Schweigger 
horizontally  on  a light  vertical  axle  hanging  on  a silken  thread,  and  bear, 
ing  a circular  disk  of  paper  colored  differently  on  each  side.  . . . By 

degrees  he  simplified  the  apparatus.  Eor  a time  he  used  five  needles,  and 
at  last  he  was  able  to  signalize  even  with  one  single  needle  and  multiplier, 
producing  by  a combination  of  movements  in  the  two  directions,  all  the 
signs  for  letters  and  numbers.  Having  known  Soemmering’s  alarum, 
Schilling  invented  one  for  his  telegraph  also.  His  success  in  bringing 
his  instruments  to  a high  state  of  perfection  would  have  been  much 
more  rapid  had  his  time  not  been  so  much  occupied  with  various  duties, 
and  particularly  with  tbe  founding  and  directing  of  a large  lithographic 
establishment  for  the  Russian  Government.  Baron  Schilling’s  telegraph 
was  an  object  of  great  curiosity  at  St.  Petersburg ; it  was  frequently 
exhibited  by  him  to  individuals  aud  to  parties.  Already  the  Emperor 
Alexander  I,  had  been  pleased  to  notice  it  in  its  earlier  stage,  and  when 
it  was  reduced  to  great  simplicity,  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  Nicholas 
honored  Baron  Schilling  on  the  13th  of  March,  1830,  with  a visit  at  his 
lodgings  in  Opotchinin’s  house,  in  the  Konooshennaja,  to  see  experiments 
performed  with  it  through  a great  length  of  conducting  wires.  . . . 

44  In  May  of  the  last-mentioned  year  (1830)  Baron  Schilling  undertook 
a journey  to  China.  . . . After  his  return  from  the  borders  of  China  to 


* Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  July  22,  1859,  vol.  vii,  pp.  597,  598. 
tThe  Emperor  Alexande-1  died  in  1825. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


19 


St.  Petersburg,  in  March,  1832,  Baron  Schilling  occupied  himself  again 
with  the  telegraph,  and  in  May,  1835,  he  undertook  a journey  to  the  west 
of  Europe,  taking  his  simplified  instrument  with  him.  In  the  month  of 
September  he  attended  the  meeting  of  the  German  physicists  at  Bonn 
on  the  Rhine,  where  on  the  23d  he  exhibited  his  telegraph  before  the 
section  of  natural  philosophy  and  chemistry,  over  which  Professor 
Georg  Wilhelm  Muncke,  of  the  University  of  Heildelberg,  presided. 
Muncke  was  much  pleased  with  Schilling’s  instrument,  and  he  determined 
at  once  to  get  one  for  exhibition  at  his  lectures.  I have  lately  found  at 
Heidelberg  ...  in  a store-room,  the  apparatus  which  Professor 
Muncke  got  made  in  imitation  of  the  one  exhibited  by  Baron  Schilling 
at  Bonn.”  # 

The  conflicting  accounts  of  Schilling’s  system  given  at  a later  date 
appear  to  refer  to  instruments  constructed  at  different  periods.  Thus  it 
is  said  that  in  the  latter  part  of  1832  [!]  he  used  a “ certain  number  of 
platinum  wires  insulated  and  united  in  a cord  of  silk,  which  put  in  action, 
by  the  aid  of  a species  of  key,  36  magnetic  needles,  each  of  which  was 
placed  vertically  in  the  center  of  a multiplier.  M.  de  Schilling  was  the 
first  who  adapted  to  this  kind  of  apparatus  an  ingenious  mechanism 
suitable  for  sounding  an  alarm,  which  when  the  needle  was  turned  at 
the  beginning  of  the  correspondence,  was  set  in  play  by  the  fall  of  a 
little  ball  of  lead  which  the  magnetic  needle  caused  to  fall.  This  tele- 
graph of  M.  de  Schilling  was  received  with  approbation  by  the  Empe- 
ror, who  desired  it  established  on  a larger  scale : but  the  death  of  the 
inventor  postponed  the  enterprise  indefinitely.”  f 

It  is  also  stated  in  another  account,  that  Schilling  exhibited  his  tele- 
graphic instruments  before  the  Emperor  Alexander.  “In  order  to  ap- 
prise the  attendant  before  the  commencement  of  a telegraphic  dispatch, 
Schilling  set  off  an  alarm.  How  much  of  his  apparatus  belongs  prop- 
erly to  the  Baron  Schilling,  or  whether  a part  of  it  was  not  an  imitation 
of  that  of  Gauss  and  Weber,  is  not  for  the  editor  to  decide;  but  that 
Schilling  had  already  experimented  (probably  with  a more  imperfect  ap- 
paratus) before  the  Emperor  Alexander,  and  subsequently  before  the 
Emperor  Nicholas,  is  affirmed  by  the  authorities  adduced.”  The  account 
describes  the  communications  as  consisting  of  signs  devised  from  the 
various  combinations  of  the  right  and  left  deflections  of  the  single  nee- 

* Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts , July  29,  1859,  vol.  vii,  pp.  608,  607.  The  apparatus 
above  referred  to,  is  noteworthy  as  being  that  seen  by  Mr.  William  Fothergill  Cooke 
on  attending  one  of  the  lectures  by  Professor  Muncke,  at  Heidelberg,  March  6,  1836, 
on  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph;  and  which  apparatus  he  proceeded  immediately  to 
have  reproduced.  Returning  to  London  April  22,  of  the  same  year,  Mr.  Cooke,  (in  con- 
junction with  Professor  Wheatstone, ) succeeded  by  liis  energy  in  introducing  the  needle 
telegraph  into  England : and  thus  Schilling’s  great  invention  became  transplanted  from 
St.  Petersburg  to  Loudon,  without  either  of  its  English  introducers  having  any  idea  of 
its  true  origin.  As  Dr.  Hamel  remarks : “Mr.  Cooke,  who  had  never  occupied  himself 
with  the  study  either  of  natural  philosophy  in  general,  or  of  electricity  in  particular, 
did  not  at  all  get  further  acquainted  with  Professor  Muncke.  He  did  not  even  acquire 
his  name  properly ; he  calls  him  Moncke.  He  had  no  idea  that  the  apparatus  he  had 
seen  had  been  contrived  by  Baron  Schilling  in  Russia.” 

t Report  of  the  “Academy  of  Industry,”  Paris,  February,  1839. 


20 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


die.* * * §  It  must  evidently  have  been  at  a later  date  than  1825  when 
Schilling  reduced  his  telegraph  line  to  a single  circuit  of  two  wires  and 
employed  but  a single  galvanometer.  Whether  Schilling  or  Gauss  was 
the  original  inventor  of  that  most  important  improvement  in  galvanic 
telegraphy,  the  simplification  and  reduction  of  the  line  of  communication 
to  a single  circuit  cannot  now  perhaps  be  definitely  determined;!  but 
that  the  credit  belongs  to  Schilling  seems  highly  probable.  That  Schill- 
ing iirst  invented  and  constructed  a practical  and  operative  electro-mag- 
netic telegraph  apparatus  is  placed  beyond  dispute;  although  the  his- 
torical evidences  of  actual  date  are  somewhat  obscure.  It  is  remarkable 
that  although  Schilling’s  early  experimental  telegraph  was  widely  ex- 
hibited, and  to  numbers  of  distinguished  visitors,  no  contemporary  pub- 
lication of  its  character  or  construction  was  made;  and  the  invention  was 
unknown  to  Western  Europe  for  a dozen  years  later.t 

Thus,  in  1829,  Gustav  Theodor  Fechner,  of  Leipsic,  evidently  quite  un- 
aware of  Schilling’s  labors — years  before,  wrote  in  a text-book  on  Gal- 
vanism: “There  is  no  doubt  that  if  the. insulated  wires  of  twenty-four 
multipliers,  representing  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  (situated  in  Leipsic, 
for  example),  were  conducted  underground  to  Dresden,  where  should 
be  placed  a battery,  we  would  have  thereby  a medium  of  communica- 
tion probably  not  very  expensive,  through  which  intelligence  could  be 
instantaneously  transmitted  from  one  city  to  another.”  § 

And  in  the  year  following,  1830,  Dr.  William  Ritchie,  at  London,  in  a 
lecture  before  the  Royal  Institution  on  the  evening  of  February  12, 
exhibited  a working  model  of  a telegraph  provided  with  26  circuits  of 
wire  for  the  several  letters  of  the  alphabet,  “Mr.  Ritchie  concluded  by  ex- 
hibiting the  electro  magnetic  telegraph  proposed  by  Ampere,  by  means 
of  which,  rapid  communication  might  be  carried  on  between  towns  in 
every  state  of  the  weather.  The  lecturer  concluded  by  observing  that 
in  the  present  state  of  the  inquiry,  we  cannot  pronounce  with  absolute 

certainty  with  regard  to  the  success  of  this  ingenious  project.”  || 

% 

The  Electro-Magnet. — But  almost  simultaneously  with  the  birth  of  the 
galvanometer,  this  fertile  agent — electricity — developed  anew  and  no  less 

* roly iechnisches  Central-Blatt,  June,  1838,  Jalirgang  iv.  b.  i,  p.  486. 
t One  of  the  foremost  of  telegraphic  inventors,  and  the  personal  friend  of  Gauss, 
Steinheil  himself,  speaks  thus  uncertainly  on  this  subject:  “The  experiments  in- 
stituted by  Schilling  by  the  deflection  of  a single  magnetic  needle,  seem  much  better 
contrived  [than  Ampere’s  plan  of  an  alphabet  of  wires,  adopted  by  Mr.  Davy  and 
others]  ; he  did  not,  however,  succeed  in  surmounting  the  mechanical  difficulties  that 
attend  the  question  in  this  shape  . . . Gauss,  and  probably  in  imitation  of  him, 

Schilling  . . . made  use  of  but  a single  wire  running  to  the  distant  station  and 

back.”  (Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity , etc.  March,  1839,  vol.  iii,  pp.  448  and  450.) 

fin  1835,  Schilling,  assisted  by  Baron  Jacquin  and  Professor  Ettingshausen,  experi- 
mented with  telegraph  wires  extended  over  the  houses  and  across  the  streets  of  Vienna, 
preferring  air  lines  to  conductors  laid  in  the  earth.  In  1837,  Schilling  ordered  at  a 
rope  manufactory  in  St.  Petersburg  the  necessary  length  of  an  insulated  submarine 
cable,  for  the  purpose  of  connecting  telegraphically  that  capital  with  Cronstadt, 
through  a portion  of  the  Gulf  of  Finland;  the  distauce  between  the  two  cities  being 
twenty  miles.  His  death  which  occurred  August  7,  1837,  arrested  the  enterprise. 

§ Lehrbuck  des  Galvanismus,  etc.  by  G.  F.  Fechner,  8vo.  Leipzig,  1829,  p.  269. 

||  The  Quarterly  Journal  of  the  Roy.  Inst,  of  Gr.  Brit.  Mar.  1830,  vol.  xxix,  p.  185. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


21 


marvelous  progeny.  In  tlie  same  year,  1820,  Dominique  Francois  Arago, 
of  Paris,  announced,  “On  repeating  the  experiments  of  the  Danish 
physicist,  I have  observed  that  the  same  current  will  develop  strongly 
in  strips  of  iron  or  steel,  the  magnetic  power.  . . . The  conjunctive 

wire  communicates  to  soft  iron  but  a momentary  magnetization ; but  to 
small  pieces  of  steel  it  gives  frequently  a permanent  magnetism.  I have 
been  able  thus  to  completely  magnetize  sewing  needles.”* 

This  germ  of  a new  power  required,  as  usual,  the  successive  labors  of 
more  than  one  philosophic  investigator  to  develop  fully  its  capacities. 
To  William  Sturgeon,  of  Woolwich,  England,  belongs  the  distinguished 
honor  (too  little  appreciated  by  his  countrymen)  of  giving  to  the  scien- 
tific toy  of  Arago  a suitable  form,  and  thus  of  first  producing  in  1824,  the 
true  electro-magnet  with  its  intermittent  control  of  an  armature.  Dis- 
pensing with  the  glass  tube  of  Arago,  Sturgeon  constructed  a horse-shoe 
bar  of  soft  iron  (after  the  form  of  the  usual  permanent  magnet),  which  he 
coated  with  a non-conducting  resinous  varnish.  Then  winding  a copper 
wire  in  a loose  coil  directly  about  the  limbs  of  the  liorse-shoe,  on  bring- 
ing the  ends  of  the  wire  in  connection  with  the  poles  of  a single  galvanic 
pair  of  moderate  size,  he  found  his  temporary  magnet  capable  of  sus- 
taining several  pounds  by  its  armature;  and  on  breaking  the  circuit, 
becoming  instantly  powerless. 

It  resulted  from  the  correlative  function  of  the  galvanic  current  in 
directing  transversely  a permanently  magnetized  needle  (first  discovered 
by  Eomagnosi  and  Oersted),  or  in  inducing  temporary  magnetism  in  iron 
thus  transversely  placed  (first  discovered  by  Arago  and  Sturgeon),  that 
tWo  distinct  methods  of  signaling  were  offered  by  this  new  agency, 
accordingly  as  a permanent  or  a temporary  magnet  were  employed.  In 
the  former  case,  the  determined  oscillations  of  the  magnetic  bar , by 
means  of  intermittent  currents  in  a surrounding  coil,  would  form  the 
indicating  device;  and  in  the  latter  case,  the  determined  oscillations  of 
the  armature , by  means  of  intermittent  currents  in  the  coil  surrounding 
its  associated  magnet,  would  give  the  indication.  Hence  the  two  types 
of  electro-magnetic  telegraph;  the.  magnetic-heedle  system,  and  the 
magnetic- armature  system,  t 

On  experimenting  with  the  galvanometer  needle,  it  was  very  soon  dis- 
covered that  it  responded  only  to  variations  of  surface  action  in  a single 
pair  of  galvanic  elements,  and  that  a large  number  of  galvanic  cells  (as 
in  the  Cruickshanks  battery),  having  even  a greater  total  surface  of  oxi- 

* Annales  de  Chimie  et  de  Physique,  1820,  vol.  xv,  pp.  93,  95,  Arago’s  method  of  experi- 
mentation consisted  in  winding  the  wire  connecting  the  poles  of  the  battery,  aronnd  a 
glass  tube  in  a loose  helix,  within  which  tube  small  pieces  of  iron  or  steel  were  placed. 
Sir  Humphrey  Davy,  of  England,  not  long  afterward,  also  magnetized  steel-needles 
by  galvanism ; and  even  effected  the  result  with  ordinary  electricity  from  a Leyden-jar 
battery.  {Annals  of  Philosophy , Angnst,  1821,  vol.  ii,  n.  s.  pp.  81-88.)  This  was  the 
germ — though  scarcely  more  than  the  germ — of  the  electro-magnet.  For  a notice  of 
early  anticipations  of  electro-magnetism,  see  “ Supplement,”  Note  C. 

t A modification  of  the  latter  system,  by  which  the  oscillations  of  an  armature  are 
superseded  by  the  variable  attraction  between  the  magnetized  core  and  its  hollow 
galvanic  coil,  might  perhaps  be  considered  as  forming  a third  type — that  of  the 
“axial”  magnet.  This  has  been  employed  in  House’s  printing  telegraph. 


22 


HENEY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


dation,  produced  but  a comparatively  small  declination  of  Schweigger’s 
needle.  In  fact,  no  multiplication  of  galvanic  elements  was  successful 
in  increasing  the  deflection  of  a given  galvanometer.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  same  galvanometer  was  found  to  have  its  deflections  greatly  reduced 
with  every  increase  in  the  length  of  the  interposed  circuit.  And  here 
again  an  increase  of  surface  in  the  galvanic  pair  failed  to  overcome  the 
increased  resistance  of  a lengthened  conductor.  There  was  also  an 
early  limit  found  to  the  number  of  turns  in  the  galvanometer  coil,  which 
could  be  efficiently  employed  with  any  given  surface  of  oxidizable  metal 
in  the  single  galvanic  element. 

In  1824,  Peter  Barlow,  the  eminent  English  mathematician  and  mag- 
netician,  taking  up  Ampere’s  suggestion,  endeavored  more  fully  to  test 
its  practicability.  He  has  thus  stated  the  result:  “In  a very  early 
stage  of  electro- magnetic  experiments,  it  had  been  suggested  that  an 
instantaneous  telegraph  might  be  established  by  means  of  conducting 
wires  and  compasses.  The  details  of  this  contrivance  are  so  obvious, 
and  the  principle  on  which  it  is  founded  so  well  understood,  that  there 
was  only  one  question  which  could  render  the  result  doubtful ; and  this 
was,  is  there  any  dimunition  of  effect  by  lengthening  the  conducting 
wire  ? It  has  been  said  that  the  electric  fluid  from  a common  [tin-foil] 
electrical  battery  had  been  transmitted  through  a wire  four  miles  in 
length  without  any  sensible  diminution  of  effect,  and  to  every  appear- 
ance instantaneously ; and  if  this  should  be  found  to  be  the  case  with 
the  galvanic  circuit,  then  no  question  could  be  entertained  of  the  prac- 
ticability and  utility  of  the  suggestion  above  adverted  to.  I was  there- 
fore induced  to  make  the  trial ; but  I found  such  a sensible  diminution 
with  only  200  feet  of  wire,  as  at  once  to  convince  me  of  the  impractica- 
bility of  the  scheme.  It  led  me  however  to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  cause 
of  this  diminution  and  the  laws  by  which  it  is  governed.”  * 

From  the  rapid  reduction  of  effect  observed  with  increasing  lengths  of 
conjunctive  wire  under  the  conditions  tried,  Barlow  (from  a considerable 
series  of  experimental  results)  was  led  to  believe  that  the  resistance  of 
the  conducting  wire  is  approximately  proportional  to  the  square  root  of 
its  length,  f 

Notwithstanding  therefore  Ampere’s  “completely  successful”  experi- 
ment “ through  a very  long  conducting  wire”  and  Schilling’s  later  work- 
ing of  his  telegraph  “through  a great  length  of  wires,”  (the  precise 
length  of  the  circuit  not  being  stated  in  either  case,)  the  problem  of  the 
electro-magnetic  telegraph  could  hardly  be  considered  as  satisfactorily 
solved  for  any  practical  purposes  of  communicating  to  great  distances. 
In  the  deliberate  judgment  of  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  English  phys- 

* “ On  the  laws  of  electro-magnetic  action.”  Edinburgh  Philosophical  Journal,  Jan. 
1825,  vol.  xii,  p.  105. 

tPp.  110,  111  of  the  Journal  just  cited.  Later  experiments  under  varied  conditions 
have  shown  that  Ohm’s  law  (announced  three  years  after  Barlow’s)  of  a simple  ratio 
of  resistance  to  length  is  approximately  correct. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH.  23 

icists  in  tliis  special  department,  careful  experiment  only  tended  to  show 
u the  impracticability  of  the  scheme.” 

It  is  at  this  point  that  there  appears  a new  explorer  in  the  electro- 
magnetic field;  a field  from  which  apparently  all  the  laurels  had  been 
already  gathered.  Joseph  Henry,  elected  to  the  professorship  of  mathe- 
matics and  natural  philosophy  in  the  Albany  Academy,  of  New  York,  in 
1826,  commenced  very  shortly  afterward  his  scientific  investigations. 
Sturgeon,  in  1824,  had  pointed  out  the  proper  manner  of  making  an 
“ electro-magnet,”  and  had  also  greatly  improved  lecture-room  apparatus 
for  illustrating  the  torsional  reaction  between  a permanent  magnet  and 
a galvanic  circuit  when  either  is  made  movable.  By  introducing  in 
such  cases  a larger  and  more  powerful  magnet  he  had  succeeded  in  ex- 
hibiting the  usual  phenomena  on  a larger  scale  with  a considerable  re- 
duction of  the  battery  power.* 

Henry  was  enabled  by  his  skillful  experimental  investigations  to  ex- 
hibit all  the  class  illustrations  attempted  by  Sturgeon,  not  only  on  a 
still  larger  and  more  conspicuous  scale,  with  the  use  of  feeble  magnets 
(where  required),  but  with  a still  further  reduction  of  the  battery  power. 
And  he  moreover  carried  out  the  same  results  to  other  cases  where  an 
artificial  magnet  is  inapplicable,  as  for  example,  in  the  illustration  of 
Ampere’s  fine  discovery  of  the  mutual  action  of  two  electric  currents  on 
each  other,  or  of  the  influence  of  the  terrestrial  magnetism  on  a current, 
as  in  Ampere’s  swinging  galvanic  ring,  or  the  floating  ring  of  De  La 
Rive.  These  very  striking  and  unexpected  results  were  obtained  by  the 
simple  expedient  of  adopting  in  every  case  where  single  circuits  had 
previously  been  used,  the  manifold  coil  of  fine  wire  which  Schweigger 
had  employed  to  increase  the  sensibility  of  the  galvanometer. 

The  coils  employed  by  Henry  in  the  various  articles  of  apparatus  thus 
improved,  comprised  usually  about  twenty  turns  of  fine  copper  wire 
wound  with  silk  to  prevent  metallic  contact,  the  whole  being  closely 
bound  together.  To  exhibit  for  instance  Ampere’s  ingenious  and  deli- 
cate experiment  showing  the  directive  action  of  the  earth  as  a magnet 
on  a galvanic  current  when  its  conductor  is  free  to  move,  (usually  a small 
wire  frame  or  ring,  of  a few  inches  in  diameter,  with  its  extremities  dip- 
ping either  into  mercury  cups  or  into  mercury  channels,)  the  effect  was 
strikingly  enhanced  by  Henry’s  method  of  suspending  by  a silk  thread 
a large  circular  coil,  20  inches  in  diameter,  of  many  wire  circuits  bound 
together  with  ribbon, — the  extremities  of  the  wire  protruding  at  the 
lower  part  of  the  hoop,  and  soldered  to  a pair  of  small  galvanic  plates; — 
when  by  simply  placing  a tumbler  of  acidulated  water  beneath,  the  hoop 

* Transactions  of  the  Society  for  the  encouragement  of  Arts,  etc.  1825,  vol.  xliii,  pp.  38-52. 
Sturgeon’s  battery  (of  a single  element)  consisted  iC  of  two  fixed  hollow  concentric  cyl- 
inders of  thin  copper,  having  a movable  cylinder  of  zinc  placed  between  them.  Its 
superficial  area  is  only  130  square  inches,  and  it  weighs  no  more  than  1 lb.  5 oz.”  Mr. 
Sturgeon  was  deservedly  awarded  the  silver  medal  of  (lie  Society  for  the  Encourage- 
ment of  Arts,  Ac.  “ for  his  improved  electro-magnetic  apparatus.”  The  same  is  de- 
scribed also  in  the  Annals  of  Philosophy,  Nov.  1826,  vol.  xii,  n.  s.  pp.  357-361. 


24 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


at  once  assumed  (after  a few  oscillations)>its  equatorial  position  transverse 
to  the  magnetic  meridian.  Such  was  the  character  of  demonstration  by 
which  the  new  Professor  was  accustomed  to  make  visible  to  his  classes 
the  principles  of  electro-magnetism.  And  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  sim- 
plicity, efficiency,  and  conspicuous  distinctness,  such  apparatus  for  the 
lecture-room  was  far  superior  to  any  of  the  kind  then  existing. 

The  details  of  this  early  contribution  to  electrical  science  were  set 
forth  in  a communication  read  by  Henry  before  the  Albany  Institute 
October  10,  1827,  u On  some  modifications  of  the  electro-magnetic  appa- 
ratus.” In  this  paper  he  remarks : 

u Mr.  Sturgeon,  of  Woolwich,  who  has  been  perhaps  the  most  success- 
ful in  these  improvements,  has  shown  that  a strong  galvanic  power  is 
not  essentially  necessary  even  to  exhibit  the  experiments  on  the  largest 
scale.  . . . Mr.  Sturgeon’s  suite  of  apparatus,  though  superior  to  any 
other  as  far  as  it  goes,  does  not  however  form  a complete  set;  as  indeed 
it  is  plain  that  his  principle  of  strong  magnets  cannot  be  introduced 
into  every  article  required,  and  particularly  into  those  intended  to  ex- 
hibit the  action  of  the  earth’s  magnetism  on  a galvanic  current,  or  the 
operation  of  two  conjunctive  wires  on  each  other.  To  form  therefore  a 
set  of  instruments  on  a large  scale  that  will  illustrate  all  the  facts  be- 
longing to  this  science,  with  the  least  expense  of  galvanism,  evidently 
requires  some  additional  modification  of  the  apparatus,  and  particularly 
in  those  cases  in  which  powerful  magnets  cannot  be  applied.  And  such 
a modification  appears  to  me  to  be  obviously  pointed  out  in  the  con- 
struction of  Professor  Schweigger’s  galvanic  4 multiplier’;  the  principles 
of  this  instrument  being  directly  applicable  to  all  the  experiments  in 
which  Mr.  Sturgeon’s  improvement  fails  to  be  useful.”* 

Should  any  one  be  disposed  to  conclude  that  this  simple  extension  of 
Schweigger’s  multiple  coil  was  unimportant  and  unmeritorious,  the  ready 
answer  occurs,  that  talented  and  skillful  electricians,  laboring  to  attain 
the  result,  had  for  six  years  failed  to  make  such  an  extension.  Hor  was 
the  result  by  any  means  made  antecedently  assured  by  Schweigger’s 
success  with  the  galvanometer.  If  Sturgeon’s  improvement  of  econo- 
mizing the  battery  size  and  consumption,  by  increasing  the  magnet 
factor  (in  those  few  cases  where  available),  was  well  deserving  of  reward? 
surely  Henry’s  improvement  of  a far  greater  economy,  by  increasing 
the  circuit  factor  (entirely  neglected  by  Sturgeon),  deserved  a still  higher 
applause. 

In  a subsequent  communication  to  Silliman’s  Journal,  Henry  remarks 
on  the  results  announced  in  October,  1827 : u Shortly  after  the  publica- 
tion mentioned,  several  other  applications  of  the  coil,  besides  those  de- 
scribed in  that  paper,  were  made  in  order  to  increase  the  size  of  electro- 
magnetic apparatus,  and  to  diminish  the  necessary  galvanic  power.  The 
most  interesting  of  these  was  its  application  to  a development  of  mag- 
netism in  soft  iron,  much  more  extensive  than  to  my  knowledge  had  been 


* Transactions  of  the  Albany  Institute,  vol.  i,  pp.  2.2,  23. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


25 


previously  effected  by  a small  galvanic  element.”  And  in  another  later 
paper,  he  repeated  to  the  same  effect : “ After  reading  an  account  of 
the  galvanometer  of  Schweigger,  the  idea  occurred  to  me  that  a much 
nearer  approximation  to  the  theory  of  Ampere  could  be  attained  by  in- 
sulating the  conducting- wire  itself,  instead  of  the  rod  to  be  magnetized ; 
and  by  covering  the  whole  surface  of  the  iron  with  a series  of  coils  in 
close  contact.” 

The  electro-magnet  figured  and  described  by  Sturgeon  (in  his  commu- 
nication of  November,  1825,)  consisted  of  a small  bar  or  stout  iron  wire 
bent  into  a fj  or  horse-shoe  form,  having  a copper  wire  wound  loosely 
around  it  in  eighteen  turns,  with  the  ends  of  the  wire  dipping  into  mer- 
cury-cups connected  with  the  respective  poles  of  a battery  having  130 
square  inches  of  active  surface.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  most  effi- 
cient electro-magnet  then  in  existence. 

In  June  of  1828,  Henry  exhibited  to  the  Albany  Institute  a small -sized 
electro  magnet  closely  wound  with  silk-covered  copper  wire  about  one- 
thirtieth  of  an  inch  in  diameter.  By  thus  insulating  the  conducting 
wire,  instead  of  the  magnetic  bar  or  core,  he  was  enabled  to  employ  a 
compact  coil  in  close  juxtaposition  from  one  end  of  the  horse  shoe  to  the- 
other,  obtaining  thereby  a much  larger  number  of  circuits,  and  with 
each  circuit  more  nearly  at  right  angles  with  the  magnetic  axis.  The 
lifting  power  of  this  magnet  is  not  stated,  though  it  must  obviously  have 
been  much  more  powerful  than  the  one  described  by  Sturgeon. 

In  March  of  1829,  Henry  exhibited  to  the  Institute  a somewhat  larger 
magnet  of  the  same  character.  “A  round  piece  of  iron  about  one-quar- 
ter of  an  inch  in  diameter  was  bent  into  the  usual  form  of  a horse- shoe, 
and  instead  of  losely  coiling  around  it  a few  feet  of  wire,  as  is  usually 
described,  it  was  tightly  wound  with  35  feet  of  wire  covered  with  silk, 
so  as  to  form  about  400  turns ; a pair  of  small  galvanic  plates  which 
could  be  dipped  into  a tumbler  of  diluted  acid,  was  soldered  to  the  ends 
of  the  wire,  and  the  whole  mounted  on  a stand.  With  these  small  plates 
the  horseshoe  became  much  more  powerfully  magnetic  than  another  of 
the  same  size  and  wound  in  the  usual  manner,  by  the  application  of  a 
battery  composed  of  28  plates  of  copper  and  zinc  each  8 inches  square.  ” 
In  this  case  the  coil  was  wound  upon  itself  in  successive  layers. 

To  Henry,  therefore,  belongs  the  exclusive  credit  of  having  first  con- 
structed the  magnetic  “ spool”  or  “bobbin,”  that  form  of  .coil  since 
universally  employed  for  every  application  of  electro-magnetism,  of  in 
duction,  or  of  magneto-electrics. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1829,  Henry  still  further  increased  the  magnetic 
power  derived  from  a single  galvanic  pair  of  small  size,  by  a new  arrange- 
ment of  the  coil.  “ It  consisted  in  using  several  strands  of  wire  each 
covered  with  silk,  instead  of  one.”  Employing  a horse-shoe  formed 
from  a cylindrical  bar  of  iron  half  an  inch  in  diameter  and  about  ten 
inches  long,  wound  with  30  feet  of  tolerably  fine  copper  wire,  he  found 


26 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


that  with  a current  from  only  two  and  a half  square  inches  of  zinc,  the 
magnet  held  14  pounds.*  Winding  upon  its  arms  a second  wire  of  the 
same  length  (30  feet)  whose  ends  were  similarly  joined  to  the  same  gal- 
vanic pair,  the  magnet  lifted  28  pounds.  On  these  results  he  remarks : 

u These  experiments  conclusively  proved  that  a great  development  of 
magnetism  could  he  effected  by  a very  small  galvanic  element,  and  also 
that  the  power  of  the  coil  was  materially  increased  by  multiplying  the 
number  of  wires,  without  increasing  the  length  of  each.  The  multi- 
plication of  the  wires  increases  the  power  in  two  ways : first,  by  con- 
ducting a greater  quantity  of  galvanism,  and  secondly,  by  giving  it  a 
more  proper  direction  ; for  since  the  action  of  a galvanic  current  is  di- 
rectly at  right  angles  to  the  axis  of  a magnetic  needle,  by  using  sev- 
eral shorter  wires  we  can  wind  one  on  each  inch  of  the  length  of  the 
bar  to  be  magnetized,  so  that  the  magnetism  of  each  inch  will  be  de- 
veloped by  a separate  wire.  In  this  way  the  action  of  each  particular 
coil  becomes  directed  very  nearly  at  right  angles  to  the  axis  of  the  bar, 
and  consequently  the  effect  is  the  greatest  possible.  This  principle  is 
of  much  greater  importance  when  large  bars  are  used.  The  advan- 
tage of  a greater  conducting  power  from  using  several  wires  might  in  a 
less  degree  be  obtained  by  substituting  for  them  one  large  wire  of  equal 
sectional  area ; but  in  this  case  the  obliquity  of  the  spiral  would  be  much 
greater,  and  consequently  the  magnetic  action  less.”f 

But  in  the  following  year,  1830,  Henry  pressed  forward  his  researches 
to  still  Ipgher  results.  Assisted  by  his  friend  Dr.  Philip  Ten-Eyck,  he 
proceeded  to  test  the  power  of  electro-magnetic  attraction  on  a larger 
scale.  “A  bar  of  soft  iron  2 inches  square  and  20  inches  long  was  bent 
into  the  form  of  a horseshoe  9£  inches  high;  (the  sharp  edges  of  the  bar 
were  first  a little  rounded  by  the  hammer;)  it  weighed  21  pounds.  A 
piece  of  iron  from  the  same  bar,  weighing  7 pounds,  was  filed  perfectly 
flat  on  one  surface  for  an  armature  or  lifter.  The  extremities  of  the 
legs  of  the  horse-shoe  were  also  truly  ground  to  the  surface  of  the  arm- 
ature. Around  this  horse-shoe  540  feet  of  copper  bell- wire  were  wound 
in  nine  coils  of  60  feet  each ;.  these  coils  were  not  continued  around  the 
whole  length  of  the  bar,  but  each  strand  of  wire  (according  to  the  prin- 
ciple before  mentioned)  occupied  about  two  inches  and  was  coiled  sev- 
eral times  backward  and  forward  over  itself.  The  several  ends  of  the 
wires  were  left  projecting,  and  all  numbered,  so  that  the  first  and  the 
last  end  of  each  strand  might  be  readily  distinguished.  In  this  man- 
ner we  formed  an  experimental  magnet  on  a large  scale,  with  which 
several  combinations  of  wire  could  be  made  by  merely  uniting  the  dif- 
ferent projecting  ends.  Thus  if  the  second  end  of  the  first  wire  be 
soldered  to  the  first  end  of  the  second  wire,  and  so  on  through  all  the 
series,  the  whole  will  form  a continued  coil  of  one  long  wire.  By  solder- 

* It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  at  the  time  when  this  experimental  magnet  was 
made,  the  strongest  electro-magnet  in  Europe  was  that  of  Sturgeon,  capable  of  sup- 
porting 9 pounds,  with  130  square  inches  of  zinc  surface  in  the  battery. 

tSilliman’s  Am.  Journal  of  Science,  Jan.  1831,  vol.  xix,  p.  402. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


27 


ing  different  ends,  the  whole  may  be  formed  into  a double  coil  of  half 
the  length,  or  into  a triple-coil  of  one-third  the  length,  &c.  The  horse- 
shoe was  suspended  in  a strong  rectangular  wooden-frame  3 feet  9 
inches  high  and  20  inches  wide.” 

Two  of  the  wires  (one  from  each  extremity  of  the  legs)  being  joined 
together  by  soldering,  so  as  to  form  a single  circuit  of  120  feet,  with  its 
extreme  ends  connected  with  the  battery,  produced  a lifting-power  of 
60  pounds.  (Experiment  19.)  The  same  two  wires  being  separately  con- 
nected with  the  same  battery  (forming  a double  circuit  of  60  feet  each), 
a lifting-power  of  200  pounds  was  obtained,  (Experiment  10,)  or  more 
than  three  times  the  power  of  the  former  case  with  the  same  wire. 
Four  wires  (two  from  each  extremity  of  the  legs)  being  separately  con- 
nected with  the  battery  (forming  four  circuits)  gave  a lifting-power  of 
500  pounds.  (Experiment  12.)  Six  wires  (three  from  each  leg)  united  in 
three  pairs  (forming  three  circuits  of  180  feet  each)  gave  a lifting-power 
of  290  pounds.  (Experiment  18.)  The  same  six  wires  being  separately 
connected  with  the  battery  in  six  independent  circuits,  produced  a lift- 
ing-power of  570  pounds,  (Experiment  13,)  or  very  nearly  double  that  of 
the  same  wires  in  double-lengths.  When  all  the  nine  wires  were  sepa- 
rately attached  to  the  battery  a lifting-power  of  650  pounds  was  evoked. 
(Experiment  14.)  In  all  these  experiments  u a small  single  battery  was 
used,  consisting  of  two  concentric  copper  cylinders,  with  zinc  between 
them : the  whole  amount  of  zinc-surface  exposed  to  the  acid  from  both 
sides  of  the  zinc  was  two-fifths  of  a square  foot ; the  battery  required 
only  half  a pint  of  dilute  acid  for  its  submersion.” 

u In  order  to  ascertain  the  effect  of  a very  small  galvanic  element  on 
this  large  quantity  of  iron,  a pair  of  plates  exactly  one  inch  square  was 
attached  to  all  the  wires  ; the  weight  lifted  was  85  pounds.”  (Experi- 
ment 16.)  For  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  maximum  attractive  power 
of  this  magnet,  with  its  nine  independent  coils,  u a small  battery  formed 
with  a plate  of  zinc  12  inches  long  and  6 wide,  and  surrounded  by  cop- 
per, was  substituted  for  the  galvanic  element  used  in  the  former  experi  - 
ments : the  weight  lifted  in  this  case  was  750  pounds.”  (Experiment 
15.)* 

Although  not  directly  connected  with  the  purpose  of  this  exposition, 

* Silliman’s  Am.  Jour.  Sci.  same  vol.  pp.  404,  405.  The  only  European  physicist  who 
at  this  period  had  obtained  any  magnetic  results  even  approaching  those  effected  by 
Henry,  was  Dr.  Gerard  Moll  (professor  of  natural  philosophy  in  the  University  of 
Utrecht),  who  having  seen  in  England  in  1828  an  electro-magnet  of  Sturgeon’s  which 
supported  nine  pounds  (the  very  year  in  which  Henry  had  exhibited  a much  more 
powerful  magnet  before  the  Albany  Institute),  “ determined  to  try  the  effect  of  a larger 
galvanic  apparatus” ; and  in  1830  remarked,  “ I obtained  results  which  appear  astonish- 
ing.” Having  formed  a horse-shoe  about  twelve  and  a half  inches  in  height,  of  around 
bar  of  iron  two  and  a quarter  inches  in  diameter,  he  surrounded  it  with  about  26  feet 
of  insulated  copper  wire  one-eighth  of  an  inch  thick,  in  a tolerably  close  coil  of  44 
turns.  The  weight  of  the  whole  was  about  26  pounds;  and  with  the  current  from  a 
galvanic  pair  of  about  11  square  feet  of  zinc  surface,  the  magnet  sustained  a weight  of 
154  pounds.  (Brewster’s  Edinburgh  Journal  of  Science , Oct.,  1830,  vol.  iii,  n.  s.  p.  214.) 
Henry’s  magnet  less  in  size  and  weight,  lifted  about  five  times  this  load,  with  only 
one-eleventh  of  Moll’s  battery  surface. 


28 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


it  may  be  added  here  that  in  the  following  year,  1831,  Henry  constructed 
for  the  laboratory  of  Yale  College  a magnet  about  one  foot  high  from  a 
three  inch  octagonal  bar  of  iron  thirty  inches  long,  which  wrapped  with 
twenty-six  strands  of  copper  wire  and  excited  by  a battery  surface  of 
about  five  square  feet,  supported  2,300  pounds.  Professor  Silliman  wrote 
on  this  occasion,  “He  has  the  honor  of  having  constructed  by  far  the 
most  powerful  magnets  that  have  ever  been  known ; and  his  last,  weigh- 
ing (armature  and  all)  but  82J  pounds,  sustains/over  a ton.  It  is  eight 
times  more  powerful  than  any  magnet  hitherto  known  in  Europe.”* 
And  Sturgeon  (if  not  the  real  father,  at  least  the  true  foster-father,  of 
the  electro-magnet),  with  a generous  enthusiasm,  remarked  : “ Professor 
Henry  has  been  enabled  to  produce  a magnetic  force  which  totally  eclipses 
every  other  in  the  whole  annals  of  magnetism ; and  no  parallel  is  to  be 
found  since  the  miraculous  suspension  of  the  celebrated  oriental  impostor 
in  his  iron  coffin.”! 

But  to  return  to  his  investigations  of  1830,  Henry,  after  finding  that 
the  highest  attractive  power  of  the  magnet  was  developed  by  his  novel 
artifice  of  multiple  coils,  proceeded  to  experiment  with  the  simple  spool 
magnet  of  long  continuous  single  coil;  and  his  researches  were  rewarded 
by  a new  discovery,  namely  that  though  the  former  method  of  winding 
the  magnet  produced  the  strongest  attraction,  the  latter  arrangement 
(under  special  conditions)  permitted  the  weaker  attractive  power  to  be 
exercised  at  a far  greater  distance;  that  is  tlfrough  a much  greater 
length  of  conducting  wire. 

Employing  his  earlier  and  smaller  magnet  of  1829,  formed  of  a quar- 
ter-inch rod,  but  wound  with  about  8 feet  of  copper  wire,  he  tried  the  ef- 
fects of  different  battery  powers,  of  different  length  of  circuits,  and  of  dif- 
ferent lengths  of  coil  upon  the  magnet.  Excited  with  a single  pair, “ com- 
posed of  a piece  of  zinc  plate  4 inches  by  7,  surrounded  with  copper  7 
(about  56  square  inches  of  zinc  surface),  the  magnet  sustained  four  and 
a half  pounds.  (Experiment  4.)  With  about  500  feet  of  insulted  copper 
wire  (.045  of  an  inch  in  diameter)  interposed  between  the  battery  and 
the  magnet,  its  lifting-power  was  reduced  to  two  ounces;  (Experiment  5;) 
or  about  36  times.  With  double  this  length  of  wire  (or  a little  over  1,000 
feet)  interposed,  the  lifting-power  of  the  magnet  was  only  half  an  ounce ; 
(Experiment  4;)  thus  fully  confirming  the  results  obtained  by  Barlow 
with  the  galvanometer ; and  showing  that  the  same  conditions  of  en- 
feebled action  with  increasing  length  of  circuit  applied  equally  to  the 
magnet.  With  a small  galvanic  pair  2 inches  square,  acting  through 
the  same  length  of  wire,  (over  1,000  feet,)  “the  magnetism  vras  scarcely 
observable  in  the  horse-shoe.”  (Experiment  3.) 

Employing  next  a trough  battery  of  25  pairs,  having  the  same  zinc 
surface  as  previously,  the  magnet  in  direct  connection,  (which  before  had 
supported  four  and  a half  pounds,)  now  lifted  but  seven  ounces;  not 


*Silliman’s  Am.  Jour.  Sci.  April,  1831,  vol.  xx,  p.  201. 
t Philosophical  Magazine ; and  Annals,  March,  1832,  vol.  xi,  p.  199. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


29 


quite  half  a pound.  But  with  the  1,080  feet  of  copper  wire  (a  little  more 
than  one  fifth  of  a mile)  suspended  several  times  across  the  large  room 
of  the  academy,  and  placed  in  the  galvanic  circuit,  the  same  magnet  sus- 
tained eight  ounces : (Experiment  7 :)  that  is  to  say,  the  current  from  the 
galvanic  trough  produced  greater  magnetic  effect  through  this  length 
of  wire,  than  it  did  without  it. 

“From  this  experiment  it  appears  that  the  current  from  a galvanic 
trough  is  capable  of  producing  greater  magnetic  effect  on  soft  iron  after 
traversing  more  than  one-fifth  of  a mile  of  intervening  wire  than  when 
it  passes  only  through  the  wire  surrounding  the  magnet.  It  is  possible 
that  the  different  states  of  the  trough  with  respect  to  dryness  may  have 
exerted  some  influence  on  this  remarkable  result  ; but  that  the  effect  of 
a current  from  a trough  if  not  increased  is  but  slightly  diminished  in 
passing  through  a long  wire  is  certain.”  And  after  speculating  on  this 
new  and  at  the  time  somewhat  paradoxical  result,  Henry  concludes : 
“ But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  fact  that  the  magnetic  action  of  a current 
from  a trough  is  at  least  not  sensibly  diminished  by  passing  through  a 
long  wire,  is  directly  applicable  to  Mr.  Barlow’s  project  of  forming  an 
electro-magnetic  telegraph  f and  ]t  is  also  of  material  consequence  in 
the  construction  of  the  galvanic  coil.  From  these  experiments  it  is 
evident  that  in  forming  the  coil  we  may  either  use  one  very  long  wire, 
or  several  shorter  ones,  as  the  circumstances  may  require:  in  the  first 
case,  our  galvanic  combination  must  consist  of  a number  of  plates  so  as 
to  give  ‘projectile’  force;  in  the  second,  it  must  be  formed  of  a single 
pair.”  t 

The  importance  of  this  discovery  can  hardly  be  overestimated  1 The 
magnetic  “spool”  of  fine  wire,  of  a length — tens  and  even  hundreds  of 
times  that  ever  before  employed  for  this  purpose, — was  in  itself  a gift  to 
science,  which  really  forms  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  electro  magnetism. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  almost  every  advancement  which  has  been 
made  in  this  fruitful  branch  of  physics  since  the  time  of  Sturgeon’s  happy 
improvement,  from  the  earliest  researches  of  Faraday  downward,  have 
been  directly  indebted  to  Henry’s  magnets.  $ By  means  of  the  Henry 
“spool”  the  magnet  almost  at  a bound  was  developed  from  a feeble 
childhood  to  a vigorous  manhood.  And  so  rapidly  and  generally  was 
the  new  form  introduced  abroad  among  experimenters,  few  of  whom  had 
ever  seen  the  papers  of  Henry,  that  probably  very  few  indeed  have  been 

* Really  Ampere’s  project,  not  Barlow’s.  I11  a subsequent  paper  Henry  corrected 
this  allusion  by  saying,  “I  called  it  ‘Barlow’s  project,’  when  I ought  to  have  stated 
that  Mr.  Barlow’s  investigation  merely  tended  to  disprove  the  possibility  of  a 
telegraph.” 

tSillimau’s  Am.  Jour.  Sci.  Jan.  1831,  vol.  xix,  pp.  403,404. 

+ Both  forms  of  the  Henry  magnet  have  found  valuable  applications  in  science.  In 
Faraday’s  lirst  electrical  investigations,  in  the  latter  part  of  1831,  lie  acknowledged 
the  merit  of  Henry’s  magnets,  and  in  constructing  his  duplex  helices  for  observing 
the  phenomena  of  induction,  he  adopted  Henry’s  method  of  winding  12  coils  of  copper 
wire  each  27  feet  long,  one  upon  the  other.  ( Philosophical  Transactions  of  the  Jioyal 
Society , November  24,  1831,  vol.  cxxii  [for  1832],  j>I>.  126  and  138.  And  Faraday’s  Ex- 
perimental llesearches,  etc.  vol.  i,  art.  6,  p.  2,  and  art.  57,  p.  15.) 


30 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


aware  to  wliom  tliey  were  really  indebted  for  this  familiar  and  powerful 
instrumentality.  But  the  historic  fact  remains,  that  prior  to  Henry’s 
experiments  in  1829,  no  one  on  either  hemisphere  had  ever  thought  of 
winding  the  limbs  of  an  electro-magnet  on  the  principle  of  the  “ bobbin,” 
and  not  till  after  the  publication  of  Henry’s  method  in  January  of  1831, 
was  it  ever  employed  by  any  European  physicist.* * * § 

But  in  addition  to  this  large  gift  to  science,  Henry  (as  we  have  seen) 
has  the  pre-eminent  claim  to  popular  gratitude  of  having  first  practi- 
cally worked  out  the  differing  functions  of  two  entirely  different  kinds 
of  electro-magnet : the  one  surrounded  with  numerous  coils  of  no  great 
length,  designated  by  him  the  “ quantity”  magnet,  the  other  sur- 
rounded with  a continuous  coil  of  very  great  length,  designated  by 
him  the  “intensity”  magnet. t The  former  and  more  powerful  system, 
least  affected  by  an  “intensity”  battery  of  many  pairs,  was  shown  to 
be  most  responsive  to  a single  galvanic  element : the  latter  and  feebler 
system,  least  influenced  by  a single  pair,  was  shown  to  be  most  excited 
by  a battery  of  numerous  elements ; but  at  the  same  time  was  shown  to 
have  the  singular  capability  (never  before  suspected  nor  imagined)  of 
subtile  excitation  from  a distant  source.  Here  for  the  first  time  is  ex- 
perimentally established  the  important  principle  that  there  must  be  a 
proportion  between  the  aggregate  internal  resistance  of  the  battery  and 
the  whole  external  resistance  of  the  conjunctive  wire  or  conducting 
circuit;  with  the  very  important  practical  consequence,  that  by  com- 
bining with  an  “intensity”  magnet  of  a single  extended  fine  coil  an 
“ intensity”  battery  of  many  small  pairs,  its  electro-motive  force  enables 
a very  long  conductor  to  be  employed  without  sensible  diminution  of  the 
effect. | This  was  a very  important  though  unconscious  experimental 
confirmation  of  the  mathematical  theory  of  Ohm,  embodied  in  his  for- 
mula expressing  the  relation  between  electric  flow  and  electric  resist- 
ance, which  though  propounded  two  or  three  years  previously,  failed 
for  a long  time  to  attract  any  attention  from  the  scientific  wortci.  § 

* Henry’s  “spool”  magnet  appears  to  have  been  introduced  into  France  by  Pouillet 
in  183,/.  See  “Supplement,”  Note  D. 

f “ In  describing  the  results  of  my  experiments  the  terms  ‘intensity’  and  1 quantity ’ 
magnets  were  introduced  to  avoid  circumlocution,  and  were  intended  to  be  used  merely 
in  a techuical  sense.  By  the  intensity  magnet  I designated  a piece  of  soft  iron  so  sur- 
rounded with  wire  that  its  magnetic  power  could  be  called  into  operation  by  an  ‘ in- 
tensity’ battery ; and  by  a quantity  magnet,  a piece  of  iron  so  snrrounded  by  a number 
of  separate  coils  that  its  magnetism  could  be  fully  developed  by  a 1 quantity  ’ battery.” 
( Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  p.  103. ) These  terms  though  generally  discarded  by  recent 
writers,  are  still  very  convenient  designations  of  the  two  classes  of  action,  both  in  the 
battery  and  in  the  magnet. 

\ Beyond  a certain  maximum  length,  there  is  of  course  a decrease  of  power  for  each 
differing  coil  of  the  “intensity”  magnet,  proportioned  to  the  increased  resistance  of 
a long  conductor ; but  the  magnetizing  effect  has  not  been  found  to  be  diminished  in 
the  ratio  of  its  length.  In  a very  long  wire,  the  magnetizing  influence  (with  a suit- 
able “intensity”  battery)  appears  to, be  inversely  proportioned  to  the  square  of  the 
length  of  the  conductor. 

§ Georg  Simon  Ohm,  professor  in  physics  at  Munich,  published  at  Berlin,  in  1827, 
his  “Galvanische  Kette,  mathematisch  bearbeitet:”  and  in  the  following  year,  he 
published  a supplementary  paper  entitled  “ Nachtrage  zu  seiner  mathematischen 
Bearbeitung  der  galvanisclien  Kette  ; ” in  Kastner’s  Archie  fur  gesammte  Naturlehre  : 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


31 


Never  let  it  be  forgotten  that  lie  who  first  exalted  the  “ quantity” 
magnet  of  Sturgeon  from  a power  of  twenty  pounds  to  a power  of  twenty 
hundred  pounds,  was  the  absolute  creator  of  the  “ intensity  ” mag- 
net; that  magnet  which  alone  is  able  to  act  at  a great  distance  from  its 
exciting  battery ; — that  magnet  which  by  very  reason  of  its  lower 
u quantity  ” is  alone  applicable  to  the  uses  of  telegraphy. 

As  Professor  Daniell  has  concisely  stated  the  problem:  “ Electro- 
magnets of  the  greatest  power,  even  when  the  most  energetic  batteries 
are  employed,  utterly  cease  to  act  when  they  are  connected  by  consider- 
able lengths  of  wire  with  the  battery.”* * 

Seven  years  after  Henry’s  first  experimental  demonstration  of  this 
unlooked-for  result,  and  his  complete  establishment  of  the  conditions 
required  for  magnetizing  iron  at  great  distances  through  very  long  con- 
ducting wires,  Prof.  Charles  Wheatstone,  of  King’s  College,  London, 
having  found  a difficulty  in  signaling  through  four  miles  of  wire,  was 
enabled  to  work  out  the  problem  for  his  own  telegraph,  by  help  derived 
from  Henry’s  labors.  And  yet  he  permitted  his  colleague,  Prof.  John 
F.  Daniell,  of  King’s  College,  to  prefix  to  the  passage  above  quoted 
from  the  excellent  treatise  on  “ Chemical  Philosophy,”  the  remarkable 
statement:  “ Ingenious  as  Professor  Wheatstone’s  contrivances  are,  they 
would  have  been  of  no  avail  for  telegraphic  purposes  without  the  in- 
vestigation, which  he  was  the  first  to  make , of  the  laws  of  electro-magnets, 
when  acted  on  through  great  lengths  of  wire.”  And  this  erroneous 
declaration  was  published  long  after  Henry’s  “quantity”  and  “ intensity” 
magnets  had  been  employed  in  the  experiments  of  European  elec- 
tricians; and  years  after  Professor  Wheatstone  himself  had  formed  the 
acquaintance  of  Henry,  and  in  April,  1837,  had  learned  from  his  own 
lips  an  account  of  his  elaborate  investigations  and  successful  results.! 

Whether  Baron  Schilling  ever  experimented  on  a sufficient  length  of 
circuit  to  encounter  the  fundamental  practical  difficulty  announced  by 
Barlow  in  1825  does  not  appear ; but  that  formidable  obstacle  to  the 
actual  extension  of  his  enterprise,  certainly  existed  until  the  year  1831, 
when  Henry  announced  that  the  principles  demonstrated  by  his  re- 
searches in  1829  and  1830,  were  “directly  applicable  to  the  project  of 
forming  an  electro-magnetic  telegraph.”  And  while  these  principles 

(8vo.  Niimberg  :)  1828,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  475-493.  Fourteen  years  after  the  publication  of 
the  former  memoir,  this  elaborate  discussion  was  for  the  first  time  translated  into 
English,  by  Mr.  William  Francis.  (“The  Galvanic  Circuit  investigated  mathemat- 
ically.” Taylor’s  Scientific  Memoirs , etc.  London,  1841,  vol.  ii,  pp.  401-506.) 

* Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Chemical  Philosophy,  second  edition,  8vo.  London  r 
1843,  chap,  xvi,  sect.  859,  p.  576. 

t Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  Ill,  112.  The  following  pertinent  extract  is 
made  from  an  excellent  .and  appreciative  memoir  of  the  “Life  and  Work  of  Joseph 
Henry,”  recently  read  at  the  annual  session  of  the  American  Electrical  Society,  at 
Chicago,  111.,  December  12, 1878,  by  one  of  its  vice-presidents,  Mr.  Frank  L.  Pope  : “ In 
1856,  referring  again  to  these  experiments,  Wheatstone  writes  : 1 With  this  law  and  its 
applications,  no  persons  in  England,  who  had  before  occupied  themselves  with  experi- 
ments relating  to  electric  telegraphs,  had  been  acquainted.’  ...  It  would  seem 
from  the  peculiar  wording  of  Wheatstone’s  statement  last  quoted,  that  he  must  then 
have  been  aware  of  Henry’s  priority  in  this  respect,  and  had  his  experiments  in  mind, 
at  the  time  of  writing  it.”  ( Journal  of  the  Am.  Electrical  Society,  vol.  ii,  pp.  135,  136.) 
This  subject  is  more  fully  considered  in  the  “ Supplement,”  Note  F. 


32 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


underlie  all  subsequent  applications  of  the  intermittent  magnet,  they 
form  indeed  the  indispensable  basis  of  every  form  of  the  electro-mag- 
netic telegraph  since  invented.  They  settled  satisfactorily  (in  Barlow’s 
idirase)  the  u only  question  which  could  render  the  result  doubtful”;  and 
though  derived  from  the  magnet,  were  obviously  as  applicable  to  the 
galvanometer  needle.* 

It  is  idle  to  say  in  disparagement  of  these  successes,  that  in  the 
competitive  race  of  numerous  distinguished  investigators  in  the  field, 
diligently  searching  into  the  conditions  of  the  new-found  agency,  the 
same  results  would  sooner  or  later  have  been  reached  by  others.  For 
of  what  discovery  or  invention  may  not  the  same  be  said?  Only  those 
who  have  sought  in  the  twilight  of  uncertainty,  can  appreciate  the  vast 
economy  of  effort  by  prompt  directions  to  the  path  from  one  who  has 
gained  an  advance.  Not  for  what  might  be,  but  for  the  actual  bestowal, 
does  he  who  first  grasps  a valuable  truth  merit  the  return  of  at  least  a 
grateful  recognition. 

1 831.  As  an  experimental  demonstration  of  the  telegraph — now  made 
possible,  Joseph  Henry,  early  in  the  year  1831,  suspended  around  the 
walls  of  one  of  the  upper  rooms  in  the  Albany  Academy,  a mile  of  cop- 
per bell- wire  interposed  in  a circuit  between  a small  Cruickshanks  bat- 
tery and  an  u intensity”  magnet.  A narrow  steel  rod  (a  permanent 
magnet)  pivoted  to  swing  horizontally  like  the  compass  needle,  was  ar- 
ranged so  that  one  end  remained  in  contact  with  a limb  of  the  soft  iron 
core,  while  near  the  opposite  end  of  the  compass  rod  a small  stationary 
office-bell  was  placed.  At  each  excitation  of  the  electro -magnet,  the 
compass  rod  or  needle  was  repelled  from  one  limb  (by  its  similar  mag- 
netism) and  attracted  by  the  other  limb,  so  that  its  free  end  tapped  the 
bell.  On  reversing  the  current,  the  compass  rod  moved  back  to  the  op- 
posite limb  of  the  electro  magnet.  This  simple  device  the  Professor  was 
accustomed  to  exhibit  to  his  classes  at  the  academy,  during  the  years 
1831  and  1832,  in  illustration  of  the  facility  of  transmitting  signals,  to  a 
distance  by  the  prompt  action  of  electro-magnetism,  f 

This  memorable  experimental  telegraphic  arrangement  involved  three 
very  significant  and  important  novelties.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  the 
first  electro  magnetic  telegraph  employing  an  u intensity”  magnet  ca- 

* Wlien  urged  by  a zealous  friend  to  secure  an  early  patent  on  thes6  valuable  and 
pregnant  improvements,  Henry  resolutely  withstood  every  importunity,  seeming  to 
feel  that  a discoverer’s  position  and  aptitude  are  lowered  by  courting  self-aggrandize- 
ment from  scientific  truth ; a self-denying  generosity  which  characterized  him  through- 
out his  life.  While  such  disinterestedness  cannot  fail  to  excite  our  admiration,  it  may 
perhaps  be  questioned  whether  in  this  case  it  did  not,  from  a practical  point  of  view, 
amount  to  an  over-fastidiousness ; whether  such  legal  establishment  of  ownership, 
shielding  the  possessor  from  the  occasional  depreciations  of  the  envious,  and  securing 
by  its  more  tangible  remunerations  the  leisure  and  the  means  for  more  extended  re- 
searches, would  not  have  been  to  science  more  than  a compensation  for  the  supposed 
sacrifice  of  dignity  by  the  philosopher.  Since  the  date  of  the  American  patents  of 
Wheatstone  and  of  Morse  (ten  years  later)  several  himdred  patents  have  been  granted 
in  this  country  for  ingenious  improvements  upon  or  modifications  of  the  electro-mag- 
netic telegraph,  all  of  them  necessarily  dependent  on  Henry’s  original  invention. 

tFor  the  testimonials  of  a few  surviving  eye-witnesses  to  the  practical  working  of 
Henry’s  experimental  line  in  1831,  and  1832,  see  u Supplement,”  Note  E. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


33 


pable  of  being  excited  at  very  great  distances  from  a suitable  u intensity  ” 
battery.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a similar  combination  of  u in- 
tensity” battery,  with  a very  long  coil  galvanometer  (such  as  had  pre- 
viously been  found  inoperative),  was  alone  wanting  to  have  rendered  the 
early  telegraph  of  Schilling  a popular  and  commercial  success. 

In  the  second  place,  this  experimental  arrangement  of  Henry  was  the 
first  electro-magnetic  telegraph  employing  the  armature  as  the  signaling 
device;  or  employing  the  attractive  power  of  the  intermittent  magnet,  as 
distinguished  from  the  directive  action  of  the  galvanic  circuit.  That  is 
to  say,  it  was  strictly  speaking  the  first  u magnetic  telegraph.” 

In  the  third  place,  it  was  the  first  acoustic  electro-magnetic  telegraph. 
One  practical  inconvenience  of  the  u needle  ” astern  has  been  found  to 
be  the  perfect  silence  of  its  indications ; and  hence  in  almost  every  case 
a call-alarm  has  been  required  to  insure  attention  to  its  messages.  In 
this  respect  the  intermittent  magnet  presents  the  advantage,  not  merely 
of  a greater  mechanical  power  from  the  same  galvanic  current,  and  thus 
of  a better  adaptation  for  striking  a bell  at  a distance,  but  of  being  in 
itself  an  audible  sounder  by  the  mere  impacts  of  its  armature.* 

It  is  suggestive  to  consider  for  a moment  how  different  would  have 
been  the  popular  estimate  of  Henry’s  labors,  (and  especially  the  practi- 
cal estimation  of  subsequent  patentees),  if  the  modest  discoverer  and  in- 
ventor had  been  u worldly-wise  ” enough  to  secure  an  early  patent  on 
these  three  indisputably  original  and  most  pregnant  features  of  teleg- 
raphy : — to  contest  which  no  rival  has  ever  appeared.! 

In  1832,  Henry  was  elected  to  the  chair  of  natural  philosophy  in  the 
college  of  New  Jersey,  at  Princeton.  In  1834,  he  constructed  for  the 
laboratory  of  this  college  an  original  and  ingenious  form  of  galvanic  bat- 
tery, comprising  eighty-eiglit  elements,  (each  having  an  active  zinc  sur- 
face of  one  and  a half  square  feet,)  of  which  any  u umber,  from  a single 
pair  upward,  could  be  brought  into  action ; while  by  means  of  adjustable 

* It  may  be  incidentally  mentioned  that  early  in  1831,  after  the  satisfactory  opera- 
tion of  the  first  telegraphic  magnet,  Henry  contrived  the  first  Electro-magnetic  Engine, 
comprising  an  oscillating  horizontal  electro-magnetic  bar,  just  below  each  end  of  which 
was  secured  an  upright  permanent  magnet,  the  two  having  similhr  poles.  The  polar- 
ity of  the  oscillating  electro-magnet  was  reversed  at  the  moment  of  attractive  contact, 
by  automatically  inverting  the  circuit  current,  and  thus  each  of  its  poles  was  alter- 
nately attracted  and  repelled  by  its  neighboring  magnet.  (Silliman’s  Am.  Journal  of 
Science,  July,  1831,  vol.  xx,  pp.  340-343.)  Henry  was  therefore  the  original  inventor 
of  the  automatic  pole-changer  or  commutator, — a device  having  a very  wide  range  of 
useful  application.  The  illustrious  English  physicist,  James  P.  Joule,  in  his  “His- 
torical Sketch  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  Electro-magnetic  Engines  for  propelling 
machinery,”  remarks : “The  improved  plan  by  Professor  Henry  of  raising  the  magnetic 
action  of  soft  iron,  developed  new  and  inexhaustible  sources  of  force  which  appeared 
easily  and  extensively  available  as  a mechanical  agent ; and  it  is  to  the  ingenious 
American  philosopher,  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  first  form  of  a working  model  of 
an  engine  upon  the  principle  of  reciprocating  polarity  of  soft  iron  by  electro-dynamic 
agency.”  (Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity,  etc.  March,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  430.) 

t A quarter  of  a century  afterward  Henry  could  proudly  say,  “ I have  sought  no  pat- 
ent for  inventions,  and  solicited  no  remuneration  for  my  labors,  but  have  freely  given 
their  results  to  the  world  ; expecting  only  in  return  to  enjoy  the  consciousness  of  hav- 
ing added  by  my  investigations  to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge,  and  to  receive  the 
credit  to  which  they  might  justly  entitle  me.”  ( Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  p.  86.) 

3 E T 


34 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


conductors,  all  the  positive  elements  could  be  associated  together,  as 
also  all  the  negative  ones,  so  as  to  form  virtually  a single  pair  having  132 
square  feet  of  zinc  surface,  or  any  smaller  area  desired.  In  this  manner 
the  apparatus  could  readily  be  transformed  into  a “quantity”  battery, 
or  an  “intensity”  battery,  at  pleasure.  In  the  same  year  he  constructed 
for  the  laboratory  a powerful  “quantity”  magnet,  surpassing  his  Yale 
College  magnet;  its  lifting  power,  with  a battery  not  exceeding  one 
cubic  foot  in  bulk,  being  3,500  pounds.  In  the  following  year,  1835,  he 
extended  wires  across  the  front  campus  of  the  college  grounds,  from  the 
upper  story  of  the  library  building  to  the  philosophical  hall  on  the  op- 
posite side,  through  which  magnetic  signals  were  occasionally  sent,  dis- 
tinguished by  the  number  of  taps  on  the  bell,  as  first  exhibited  by  him 
four  or  five  years  earlier  in  the  hall  of  the  Albany  Academy.  Although 
Henry  had  established  the  fact  (contrary  to  all  the  antecedent  expecta- 
tion of  physicists)  that  the  most  powerful  form  of  magnet — the  “quan- 
tity” magnet — is  not  the  form  best  adapted  to  distant  action  through  an 
extended  circuit,  the  ingenious  idea  occurred  to  him  that  he  could  easily 
combine  such  a system  with  the  feebler  “intensity”  system,  so  as  to 
pro  luce  powerful  mechanical  action  at  almost  any  required  distance.  It 
was  simply  necessary  to  apply  to  the  oscillating  armature  of  the  distant 
“intensity”  magnet  a suitable  prolongation  so  arranged  as  to  open  and 
close  the  short  circuit  of  the  adjoining  “quantity”  magnet  of  any  avail- 
able power.  It  was  with  his  Princeton  telegraph  line,  and  its  compar- 
atively feeble  magnet,  <that  he  undertook  the  experiment  of  breaking  by 
the  mere  lift  of  a small  wire  from  a mercury  thimble  the  “ quantity”  cir- 
cuit of  his  monster  magnet,  and  thus  causing  its  heavy  load  to  fall : — a 
force  scarcely  safe  if  exerted  through  any  sensible  distance.  He  thus 
fully  illustrated  the  practicability  of  calling  into  action  at  a great 
distance  a power  capable  of  producing  the  most  energetic  mechanical 
effects.* 

1833.  Ten  years  after  the  experimental  telegraph  of  Schilling,  Pro- 
fessors Carl  Friedrich  Gauss,  and  Wilhelm  Edward  Weber  constructed 
at  Gottingen  a galvanometer  telegraph  of  single  circuit  from  the  Cabinet 
of  Natural  Philosophy  to  the  Observatory,  a distance  of  about  a mile  and 
a half.  The  two  naked  wires  after  the  method  of  Weber  were  carried 
over  the  houses  and  steeples  ot  Gottingen,  being  supported  by  insula- 
tors. The  battery  power  being  small,  the  receiving  apparatus  consisted 
of  a “multiplier”  containing  a very  great  length  of  fine  silvered  copper 
wire;  and  the  magnetic  bar  suspended  by  a silk  thread  carried  on  tire 
axis  of  suspension  a small  mirror,  whose  minute  deflections  were  observed 
at  the  distance  of  ten  or  twelve  feet  through  a telescope.!  The  tele - 

* Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  108,  112. 

tTliis  appears  to  be  one  of  the  first  employments  of  a reflecting  galvanometer,  an 
instrument  which  in  the  hands  of  Sir  William  Thomson  has  been  brought  to  an  ex- 
treme degree  of  sensibility,  and  has  rendered  ocean  telegraphy  possible.  As  early  as 
1826,  however,  Prof.  Christian  J.  Poggendorff  applied  the  reflector  to  the  magnetic! 
needle  for  accurately  determining  minute  variations  in  its  horizontal  declination. 
(Pogg.  Annalen  der  Phys.  und  Chem.  1826,  vol.  vii.  pp.  121-130.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


35 


graph  was  first  worked  by  a galvanic  current  from  a battery,  and  after- 
ward for  convenience  by  the  secondary  current  from  a magneto-electric 
apparatus;  to  which  Gauss  adapted  an  arrangement  of  commutator, 
whereby  the  direction  of  the  induced  current  could  be  instantly  reversed 
by  a touch  of  the  finger.  The  alphabet  of  signs  was  made  up  of  differ- 
ing combinations  of  right  and  left  deflections  of  the  needle.  Weber  ap- 
plied to  the  signaling  device  a delicate  apparatus  for  setting  off  a clock 
alarm.* 


183G.  Prof.  C.  A.  Steinheil,  of  Miinicli,  at  the  request  of  Gauss,  (who 
was  absorbed  in  more  abstract  researches  on  magnetism,)  in  1834,  under- 
took to  develop  and  improve  his  arrangement ; and  in  1836  had  construct- 
ed a similar  * galvanometer  telegraph  line  between  Munich  and  Bogen- 
hausen,  a distance  of  about  two  miles,  t Employing  a greater  power  he 
arranged  at  the  receiving  station  the  magnetic  bar  or  double  bars  of  the 
galvanometer  with  a larger  sweep,  so  that  two  bells  of  differing  tones 
should  be  struck  thereby ; and  he  thus  produced  an  acoustic  telegraph 
(five  years  later  than  Henry’s),  capable  of  audible  language,  and  dis- 
pensing with  the  occasion  for  any  call-alarm.  To  the  adjacent  ends  of 
the  two  magnetic  bars  having  opposite  polarities,  but  oscillating  within 
the  same  coil,  he  applied  fountain  pens  or  marking-points  so  as  to  make 
permanent  alternating  dots  on  a fillet  of  paper  carried  under  them  by 
the  regular  movement  of  clock-work,  in  the  manner  long  familiarly  em- 
ployed in  self-registering  meteorological  and  other  instruments.  Al- 
though Dyar,  on  Long  Island,  had  devised  a chemical  register  as  early 
as  1828,  and  had  partly  executed  it  by  a successful  trial,  this  double 
magnet  of  Steinheil  appears  to  constitute  the  earliest  operative  applica- 
tion of  an  automatic  record  to  the  electric,  or  to  the  electro-magnptic, 
telegraph.  Steinheil  also  improved  somewhat  on  the  alphabet  of  Gauss, 
though  adopting  substantially  the  same  system.^ 

In  thfe  following  year,  1837,  he  made  another  most  important  improve- 
ment in  practical  telegraphy,  by  the  unexfiected  discovery  that  even  the 
single  circuit  of  a to  and  fro  line  could  be  further  simplified  by  the 
suppression  and  economy  of  one-half  of  its  wire.§  ^ 

* Grottingische  Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  Aug.  9,  1834,  part  ii,  No.  128,  pp.  1272,  1273.  And 
Folytechnisches  Central- Blatt,  June,  1838,  Jahrgang  iv,  No.  31,  pp.  487-493. 

t According  to  Dr.  Hamel  of  St.  Petersburg,  in  the  early  part  of  July,  1837,  “Stein- 
lieil,  at  Munich,  had  completed  the  cpnnection  of  his  house  in  the  Lerchenstrasse  with 
the  building  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences,  and  with  the  Royal  Observatory  at  Bogen- 
hausen,  by  means  of  36,000  feet  of  wire  for  conducting  the  current  both  ways,  the 
wires  being  suspended  in  the  air.”  ( Journal  of  Society  of  Arts,  July  29,  1859,  vol.  vii, 
p.  609.) 

- t Steinheil  remarks:  “As  long  as  the  intervals  between  the  separate  signs  remain 
equal,  they  are  to  be  taken  together  as  a connected  group,  whether  they  be  pauses  be- 
tween the  tones,  or  intervals  between  the  dots  marked  down.  A longer  pause  separ- 
ates these  groups  distinctly  from  each  other.  We  are  thus  enable  I,  by  appropriately 
selected  groups  thus’ combined, to  form  systems  representing  the  letters  of  the  alpha- 
bet, or  stenographic  characters,  aud  thereby  to  repeat  and  render  permanent  at  all 
parts  of  the  chain  where  an  apparatus  like  that  above  described  is  inserted,  any  in- 
formation that  we  transmit.  The  alphabet  that  I have  chosen  represents  the  letters 
that  occur  the  oftenest  in  German  by  the  simplest  signs.”  (Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Elec- 
tricity, etc.  April,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  520.) 

§“In  1837  Professor  Steinheil  operated  a telegraph  line  between  Munich  and  Bogen- 


36 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


11  Quite  recently  I made  the  discovery  that  the  ground  may  be  em- 
ployed as  one-half  of  the  connecting  chain.  As  in  the  case  of  frictional 
electricity,  water  or  the  ground  may  with  the  galvanic  current  form  a 
portion  of  the  connecting  wire.  Owing  to  the  low  conducting  power  of 
these  bodies  compared  with  metals,  it  is  necessary  that  at  the  two  places 
where  the  metal  conductor  is  in  connection  with  the  semi-conductor,  the 
former  should  present  very  large  surfaces  of  contact.  Taking  water  for 
instance  to  conduct  two  million  times  worse  than  copper,  a surface  of 
water  proportional  to  this  must  be  brought  in  contact  with  the  copper, 
to  enable  the  galvanic  current  to  meet  with  equal  resistance  in  equal 
distances  of  water  and  of  metal ; for  instance,  if  the  section  of  a copper 
wire  is  one-half  of  a square  line,  it  will  require  a copper  plate  of  61  square 
feet  of  surface  in  order  to  conduct  the  galvanic  current  'through  the 
ground  as  the  wire  in  question  would  conduct  it : but  as  the  thickness 
of  the  metal  is  quite  immaterial  in  this  case,  it  will  be  always  within 
our  reach  to  get  the  requisite  surfaces  of  contact  at  no  great  expense. 
Not  only  do  we  by  this  means  save  half  the  conducting  wire,  but  we  can 
even  reduce  the  resistance  of  the  ground  below  what  that  of  the  wire 
would  be,  as  has  been  fully  established  by  experiments  made  here  with 
the  experimental  telegraph.”* 

In  his  account  of  these  valuable  contributions  to  both  the  science  and 
the  art  of  electric  telegraphy,  Steinheil  modestly  assigns  to  his  immedi- 
ate predecessors  the  credit  of  the  most  important  advancements  in  the 
system.  He  says:  “To  Gauss  and  Weber  is  due  the  merit  of  having,  in 
1833,  actually  constructed  the  first  simplified  galvano-magnetic  telegraph. 
It  was  Gauss  who  first  employed  the  excitement  of  induction  [magneto- 
electricity],  and  who  demonstrated  that  the  appropriate  combination  of  a 
limited  number  of  signs  is  all  that  is  required  for  the  transmission  of 
communication. f Weber’s  discovery  that  a copper  wire  7,460  feet  long, 
which  he  had  led  across  the  houses  and  steeples  at  Gottingen,  from  the 
Observatory  to  the  Cabinet  of  Natural  Philosophy,  required  no  special 
insulation,  was  one  of  great  importance.  The  principle  was  thereby  at 
once  established  of  bringing  the  galvanic  telegraph  to  the  most  conven- 
ient form.  In  accordance  with  the  principles  we  have  laid  down,  all  that 
was  required  in  addition  to  this  was  to  render  the  signals  audible ; a task 
that  apparently  presented  no  very  particular  difficulty,  inasmuch  as  in 
the  very  scheme  itself  a mechanical  motion — namely  the  deflection  of  a 

hausen,  in  Germany,  using  iron  wire  conductors,  and  the  earth  for  a return  circuit. 
This  discovery  was  published  in  1837,  in  German,  and  translated  into  English  by 
Julian  Guggsworth,  November  ‘24,  1838.”  (Prescott’s  Hist.  Electr.  Telegraph.  1860,  chap, 
xxi,  p.  405.)  An  account  of  SteinheiPs  telegraph  was  read  before  the  French  Academy 
of  Sciences,  September  10,  1838.  ( Comptes  Rendus , vol.  vii,  pp.  590-593.) 

* SteinheiPs  paper  “On  Telegraphic  Communication  : ” translated  from  the  German, 
November  *24,  1838,  by  Julian  Guggsworth.  Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity,  etc. 
April,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  512.  A full  description  of  SteinheiPs  telegraph  is  given  m Dr. 
Julius  Dub’s  Anwendting  des  EJektromagnetismus,  Berlin,  1883;  2d  edition,  1873,  sect,  v, 
pp.  339-347. 

t These  statements  do  not  however  do  justice  to  Schilling’s  much  earlier  “simpli- 
fied galvano-magnetic  telegraph,”  with  which  Steinheil  was  very  imperfectly  ac- 
quainted. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


37 


magnetic  bar — was  given.  All  that  we  had  to  do  therefore  was  to 
contrive  that  this  motion  should  be  made  available  for  striking  bells  or 
for  marking  indelible  dots.  This  falls  within  the  province  of  mechan- 
ics, and  there  are  therefore  more  ways  than  one  of  solving  the  prob- 
lem. Hence  the  alterations  that  I have  made  in  the  telegraph  of 
Gauss,  and  by  which  it  has  assumed  its  present  form,  may  be  said  to 
be  founded  on  my  perception  and  improvement  of  its  imperfections,  in 
harmony  with  what  I had  previously  laid  down  as  necessary  for  perfect 
telegraphic  communication.  I by  no  means  however  look  on  the  arrange- 
ment I have  selected  as  complete;  but  as  it  answers  the  purpose  I had 
in  view,  it  may  be  well  to  abide  by  it  till  some  simpler  arrangement  is 
contrived.”*  To  SteinlieiPs  lasting  honor  be  it  said,  that  when  some 
dozen  years  later  aa  simpler  arrangement”  of  the. receiving  instrument 
was  brought  to  his  attention,  he  was  the  first  to  appreciate  it  and  to 
urge  upon  the  Bavarian  Government  its  adoption,  to  the  abandonment 
of  a portion  of  his  own  beautiful  system.  An  example  of  magnanimity, 
or  more  properly  of  intellectual  and  unbiased  judgment,  much  rarer 
with  inventors  of  practical  improvements  in  art,  than  with  discoverers 
of  truth  in  science. 

These  later  developments  of  the  telegraph,  though  in  public  use  at 
the  dates  specified,  not  having  been  generally  described  by  their  authors 
immediately  for  publication,  were  from  the  meager  notices  of  them  found 
in  the  foreign  journals,  but  little  known  in  this  country  for  several  years 
afterward;  and  hence  naturally  arose  the  strong  patriotic  impression 
with  many  that  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  was  essentially  an  Amer- 
ican invention. 

About  the  same  time  that  Steinheil  in  Munich  was  engaged  in  im- 
proving the  needle  telegraph,  a distinguished  chemical  philosopher  of 
London,  was  developing  the  galvanic  battery;  and  he  succeeded  in 
giving  that  important  apparatus  a uniformity  and  continuity  of  action 
previously  unhoped  for.  In  the  adopted  forms  of  the  Voltaic  battery 
as  arranged  by  Cruickshanks  and  others,  the  oxygen  liberated  by  the 
active  zinc  surface  rapidly  attacked  the  plate,  forming  a coating  of  oxide 
over  it  which  soon  greatly  impaired  its  chemical  and  galvanic  efficiency. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  hydrogen  liberated  at  the  surface  of  the  copper, 
remained  largely  adherent  to  it  in  the  form  of  minute  bubbles,  thus  in- 
sulating it  to  a corresponding  extent  from  contact  with  the  liquid;  while 
at  the  same  time  dissolved  zinc  was  deposited  on  its  exposed  surface. 

To  obviate  these  impediments,  Professor  John  Frederic  Daniell  pro- 
vided a porous  partition  between  the  two  metals,  which  while  permitting 
the  necessary  conductibility  from  one  side  to  the  other,  prevented  the 
convective  intermixture  of  the  separated  portions  of  liquid,  and  thus 
also  allowed  for  the  first  time  two  different  liquids  to  be  employed  for 
bathing  the  different  metals.  The  liquid  employed  on  the  copper  side 

* Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity,  etc.  Mar.  1831),  vol.  iii,  pp.  448,  449. 


38 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


was  a saturated  solution  of  the  sulphate  of  copper; — crystals  of  the 
sulphate  being  suspended  in  the  liquid,  for  supplying  the  exhaustion  of 
the  copper.  The  liquid  on  the  zinc  side  was  a very  diluted  sulphuric 
acid.  With  this  arrangement  the  oxygen  evolved  at  the  zinc  surface 
forms  mainly  a zinc  oxide,  which  dissolved  by  the  liquid  into  a sulphate 
of  zinc,  is  prevented  from  passing  to  the  copper  side  of  the  partition, 
and  the  hydrogen  evolved  at  the  copper  surface  combining  at  once  with 
the  oxygen  of  the  copper  salt,  forms  water,  and  allows  the  free  copper 
to  be  deposited  on  its  own  plates : and  Professor  Daniell  was  able  to 
announce  in  a paper  read  before  the  Royal  Society  of  London,  February 
11,  1836,  “I  have  been  led  to  the  construction  of  a voltaic  arrangement 
which  furnishes  a constant  current  of  electricity  for  any  length  of  time 
which  may  be  required.”  * 

Although  it  is  true  that  the  electric  telegraph  may  be  operated  by  the 
old  form  of  battery — frequently  renewed,  (just  as  a good  steam-engine 
may  be  efficiently  worked  by  an  inferior  and  wasteful  boiler,)  and  also 
that  a uniform  current  well  adapted  to  the  telegraph  may  be  obtained 
from  the  magneto-electric  machine,  yet  the  “constant”  battery  has 
proved  a most  valuable  boon  in  promoting  the  practical  economy  and 
success  of  modern  telegraphy. 

1837.  Mr.  William  Fothergill  Cooke  and  Prof.  Charles  Wheatstone 
obtained  an  English  patent  June  12, 1837,  (No.  7390,)  for  a galvanometer 
or  needle  telegraph,  very  similar  to  the  earlier  one  of  Schilling,  employ- 
ing six  wires  and  five  indicating  needles.  At  what  date  Prof.  Wheat- 
stone’s attention  was  first  directed  to  electrical  signaling  cannot  now  be 
ascertained;  but  in  1834  he  had  undertaken  by  means  of  his  ingenious 
invention  of  the  revolving  mirror  (capable  of  measuring  the  millionth 
of  a second),  to  determine  the  velocity  of  ordinary  electricity  through 
half  a mile  of  copper  wire;f  and  a year  or  two  later,  through  about  four 
miles  of  the  same.  Early  in  1836,  he  had  contemplated  a telegraph  which 
with  five  needles,  should  give  thirty  signs.  Mr.  W.  E.  Cooke,  attending 
a lecture  on  electro-magnetic  communication  by  Professor  Muncke,  at  Hei- 
delberg, March  6, 1836,  (as  previously  mentioned,)  at  which  the  telegraphic 
apparatus  of  Schilling  was  exhibited,  at  once  “ conceived  the  idea.”  In 
his  “ Statement  of  facts  to  the  Arbitrators”  in  December,  1840,  Mr.  Cooke 
declares : “Mr.  Moncke’s  experiment  was  at  that  time  the  only  one  upon 
the  subject  that  I had  seen  or  heard  of.  It  showed  that  electric  cur- 
rents being  conveyed  by  wires  to  a distance,  could  be  there  caused  to 

* Phil.  Trans.  Roy.  Soc.  1836,  vol.  cxxau,  p.  107.  In  the  “gravity  battery”  of  Cal- 
laud,  and  of  Varley,  the  porous  diaphragm  is  dispensed  with  by  placing  the  lighter 
liquid  (a  diluted  solution  of  zinc  sulphate)  above  the  heavier  liquid  (a  saturated  solu- 
tion of  copper  sulphate);  the  separation  being  maintained  by  their  difference  of 
specific  gravity.  In  this  arrangement  the  copper  plate  rests  at  the  bottom  of  the  cell, 
and  the  zinc  plate  is  supported  at  its  top. 

t Philosoph.  Transac.  of  Roy.  Soc.  (read  June  19,  1834),  vol.  cxxiv,  pp.  583-589.  In  this 
paper,  Wheatstone  says,  that  his  first  ineffectual  attempt  to  discover  a velocity  of 
electricity  was  made  in  1830.  “The  method  by  which  I then  proposed  to  effect  this 
purpose,  was  announced  in  a lecture  delivered  by  Dr.  Faraday,  at  the  Royal  Institu- 
tion, in  June,  1830.”  (p.  583.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


39 


deflect  magnetic  needles,  and  thereby  to  give  signals.  It  was  in  a word  a 
hint  at  the  application  of  electricity  to  telegraphic  purposes $ but  nothing 
more,  for  it  provided  no  means  of  applying  that  power  to  practical  uses. 
[!]  . . . Within  three  weeks  after  the  day  on  which  I saw  the  ex- 

periment, I had  made  (partly  at  Heidelberg  and  partly  at  Frankfort) 
my  first  electric  telegraph  of  the  galvanometer  form.”  * * * § This  apparatus 
comprised  three  indicating  needles  in  connection  with  three  circuits  of 
six  wires ; each  terminus  of  the  line  being  provided  with  both  trans- 
mitting keys,  and  indicating  galvanometers.  Mr.  Cooke  also  applied 
a call-alarm,  differing  from  Schilling’s  in  having  an  ordinary  clock- 
alarm,  (similar  to  that  used  by  Weber  several  years  previously,) 
checked  by  an  armature  detent  which  was  released  on  the  excitement 
of  an  electro-magnet  by  the  current.  Not  being  skilled  in  electrical 
science  however,  nor  aware  of  Henry’s  researches,  he  soon  found 
the  difficulty  of  operating  with  a “ quantity  ” battery  his  galvanometer 
coils  through  a long  circuit ; and  in  February,  1837,  he  was  introduced 
to  Professor  Wheatstone  by  Dr.  P.  M.  Roget.  t On  comparing  their 
respective  projects  of  a needle  telegraph,  the  two  concluded  to  combine 
their  exertions  in  a partnership  ; and  in  a little  more  than  three  months 
they  secured  a joint  patent  on  their  perfected  system 4 An  experimental 
line  between  Euston  Square  and  Camden  Town  Stations  (a  distance  of 
a mile  and  a quarter),  was  worked  with  partial  success  July  25,  1837 ; 
and  early  in  1838,  the  patentees  established  a telegraph  line  between 
taddiugton  and  West  Dayton  ; fjie  distance  between  these  two  points 
being  about  thirteen  miles.  Neither  of  these  “ co-inventors”  appears 
at  this  time  to  have  been  aware  of  the  early  needle  telegraph  of  Baron 
Schilling,  whose  arrangement  had  been  so  closely  imitated  by  Mr. 
Cooke,  and  whose  later  simplification  and  improvement  he  had  failed 
to  reach. 

As  illustrative  of  the  mistaken  and  inaccurate  manner  in  which  im- 
portant accounts  are  often  transmitted  by  even  intelligent  and  honest 
men, — without  due  investigation  and  information,  a quotation  may  here 
be  made  from  the  “Award”  of  arbitration  between  the  subsequent  conflict- 
ing claims  of  Cooke  and  of  Wheatstone,  rendered  27th  April,  1841,  by  the 
referees,  Marc  Isambord  Brunei,  the  eminent  engineer,  and  John  Fred- 
erick Daniell,  the  eminent  chemist,  meteorologist,  and  electrician.  They 
state:  “In  March,  1836,  Mr.  Cooke,  while  engaged  in  scientific  pursuits 
[!],  witnessed  for  the  first  time  one  of  those  ay  ell-known  experiments  on 
electricity  [!]  considered  as  a possible  means  of  communicating  intelli- 
gence [!],  which  have  been  tried  and  exhibited  from  time  to  time  [!] 
during  many  years  by  various  philosophers ! ”§  And  thus,  in  strange 

* The  Electric  Telegraph , etc.  by  William  Fothergill  Cooke,  2 parts,  8vo.  London, 
1856, 1857 ; part  ii,  “Arbitration  Papers,”  sects.  14,  18,  pp.  14,  15. 

t For  an  account  of  the  circumstances  attending  and  following  this  conference,  see 
“ Supplement,”  Note  F. 

t Messrs.  Cooke  & Wheatstone’s  English  patent  is  dated  June  12,  1837,  No.  7390 ; and 
their  American  patent,  June  10,  1840,  No.  1622. 

§ llie  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.  by  William  Fothergill  Cooke,  2 parts,  8vo.,  London, 
1856,  1857 ; part  i,  p.  14:  and  part  ii,  p.  211 ; also  p.  265. 


40 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


exaggeration  of  Cooke’s  contribution  to  telegraphy,  not  only  is  Schilling’s 
fine  invention  (of  which  the  arbitrators  had  probably  never  heard) 
entirely  overlooked,  but  even  Professor  Muncke’s  intelligent  exposition 
of  it,  (by  Mr.  Cooke’s  representation — a u well-known  experiment,”)  is 
dismissed  as  the  recurrent  exhibition  u by  various  philosophers,” — prob- 
ably as  familiar  in  London  as  in  Heidelberg.* 


1837.  About  the  date  of  the  Cooke  and  Wheatstone  patent  (or  a month 
or  two  later  in  the  same  year),  a different  form  of  electro-magnetic  tele- 
graph was  being  slowly  developed  in  the  city  of  New  York.  In  the 
autumn  of  the  year  1835,  an  American  artist  of  acknowledged  merit  and 
of  liberal  education,  a graduate  of  Yale  College,  about  forty -five  years 
of  age,  was  appointed  professor  of  the  arts  of  design  in  the  University 
of  the  city  of  New  York,  then  recently  established.!  Occupying 
rooms  in  the  unfinished  building,  he  commenced  experimenting  on  an 
electro-magnetic  recording  telegraph,  the  idea  of  which  had  for  several 
years  been  floating  in  his  mind.  An  upright  square  frame  secured  to 
the  edge  of  a table,  was  provided  with  a transverse  strip  or  shelf  about 
midway  of  its  height,  on  which  was  arranged  a small  Sturgeon  electro- 
magnet lying  upon  its  side,  with  its  poles  directed  outward  from  the 
side  of  the  frame.  Directly  in  front  of  this,  a wooden  pendulum  sus- 
pended from  the  top  bar  of  the  frame  and  having  at  its  middle  a small 
iron  bar  acting  as  an  armature  for  the  magnet,  was  allowed  a small  play 
to  and  from  the  lower  part  of  the  frame.  To  the  lower  end  of  the  pen- 
dulum was  attached  a pencil  projecting  downward,  and  made  adjustable 
so  as  to  bear  lightly  against  a strip  of  paper  supported  by  a roller  be- 
neath, and  slowly  moved  along  near  the  edge  of  the  table  by  clock-work, 
after  the  manner  usually  employed  in  recording  apparatus.  A single 
cup  formed  the  galvanic  element,  and  the  circuit  involving  the  electro- 
magnet was  closed  and  opened  by  means  of  a lever  armed  with  a wire 
fork  which  dipped  into  two  mercury  thimbles  connected  respectively 

*Two  other  projects  of  needle  telegraph  on  Ampere’s  and  Schilling’s  plan,  belong- 
ing to  the  latter  part  of  1837,  require  here  only  a passing  notice.  The  first,  that  of  a 
Mr.  Alexander,  exhibited  at  the  Society  of  Arts  in  Edinburgh,  comprised  thirty  trans- 
mitting keys  with  pins  beneath,  which  on  being  depressed,  closed  the  circuit  by  dip- 
ping into  a transverse  mercury  trough,  and  thirty  galvanometer  needles  at  the 
receiving  station,  each  carrying  a light  paper  screen,  which  just  covered  a painted 
letter  or  mark  when  at  rest,  but  which  by  deflection,  exposed  the  desired  letter  to 
view.  By  ingeniously  employing  but  a single  wire  for  the  return  path  of  each  circuit, 
the  inventor  required  but  thirty-one  wires.  {Mechanics’  Magazine , London,  Nov. 
25,  1837,  No.  746,  vol.  xxviii,  pp.  1.22, 123.)  The  second  scheme,  very  similar  to  the 
preceding,  that  of  a Mr.  Davy,  exhibited  at  Exeter  Hall,  in  London,  employed  but 
eight  transmitting  keys,  each  commanding  three  letters  by  different  movements,  and 
at  the  receiving  desk  twenty-four  letters  on  ground  glass,  illuminated  by  a lamp,  each 
of  which  became  visible  only  on  the  removal  of  a screen  on  the  needle,  placed  behind 
the  glass.  An  observer  remarked  that  in  the  desk  “there  is  an  aperture  about  16 
inches  long  and  3 or  4 inches  wide,  facing  the  eyes,  perfectly  dark.  On  this  the  sig- 
nals appear  as  luminous  letters,  or  combinations  of  letters,  with  a neatness  and  rapid- 
ity almost  magical.”  ( Mecli.  Mag.  Feb.  3,  1838,  No.  756,  vol.  xxviii,  pp.  295,  296.) 

tTliis  is  a different  institution  from  the  University  of  New  York  State,'  which  has 
mainly  a supervisory  function. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


41 


with  the  two  poles  of  the  cup  battery.  A series  of  types  having  on  their 
upper  face  teeth  or  cogs  varying  in  number,  were  set  up  as  desired  in 
the  groove  of  a rule  or  composing-stick,  which  was  caused  to  pass  under 
the  free  end  of  the  circuit  lever  ; and  in  this  way  the  oscillation  of  the 
said  lever  over  the  projecting  teeth  determined  the  intervals  of  trans- 
mission of  the  magnetizing  current  according  to  the  combinations  pre- 
viously arranged  in  the  composing-stick.  The  movement  of  the  strip  of 
paper  beneath  the  pencil  of  the  pendulum  produced  a continuous 
straight  line  so  long  as  the  pendulum  remained  at  rest;  but  at  each 
momentary  attraction  of  its  armature  by  the  magnet,  (induced  by  the 
completion  of  the  galvanic  circuit  on  the  passage  of  a tooth  under  the 
circuit  lever,)  the  play  of  the  pendulum  caused  a lateral  deviation  of  its 
pencil,  which  thus  produced  a transverse  Y-shaped  interruption  of  the 
straight  line. 

With  this  arrangement  of  apparatus  the  projector  was  enabled  to 
produce  signals' through  short  circuits  of  wire:  but  he  soon  discovered 
to  his  dismay  that  on  interposing  more  than  a few  yards  of  insulated 
wire,  the  oracle  was  dumb.  Although  the  remedy  for  this  defect  (first 
discovered  and  demonstrated  by  Henry)  had  been  for  four  or  five  years 
familiar  to  the  students  of  science,  the  reading  of  the  artist  had  not 
been  in  the  direction  of  scientific  literature ; and  he  had  conducted  his 
experiments  with  a surprising  indifference  and  inattention  to  the  exist- 
ing state  of  knowledge  upon  the  subject.  In  this  emergency  he  wisely 
procured  the  scientific  assistance  of  a colleague,  Dr.  Leonard  D.  Gale, 
professor  of  chemistry  in  the  same  university,  and  the  material  and 
mechanical  assistance  of  Mr.  Alfred  Vail,  of  the  Speedwell  Iron  Works 
near  Morristown,  N.  J. 

The  following  is  the  account  given  by  Dr.  Gale  of  the  early  condition 
of  this  experimental  telegraph,  and  of  his  own  connecton  therewith  : 
u In  the  winter  of  1836-’37,  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  who  as  well’ as  myself 
was  a professor  in  the  .New  York  University,  city  of  New  York,  came 
to  my  lecture-room,  and  said  he  had  a machine  in  his  lecture-room  or 
studio  which  lie  wished  to  show  me.  I accompanied  him  to  his  room, 
and  there  saw  resting  on  a table  a single-pair  galvanic  battery,  an  elec- 
tro-magnet, an  arrangement  of  pencil,  a paper-covered*  roller,  pinion- 
wheels,  levers,  &c.,  for  making  letters  and  figures  to  be  used  for  send- 
ing and  receiving  words  and  sentences  through  long  distances.  . . . 

At  this  time  as  Morse  assured  me  no  man  had  seen  the  machine  except 
his  brothel*,  Sidney  E.  Morse.  . . . Morse’s  machine  was  com- 

plete in  all  its  parts,  and  operated  perfectly  through  a circuit  of  some 
forty  feet,  but  there  was  not  sufficient  force  to  send  messages  to  a dis- 
tance. At  this  time  I was  a lecturer  on  chemistry,  and  from  necessity 
was  acquainted  with  all  kinds  of  galvanic  batteries ; and  knew  that  a 
battery  of  one  or  a few  cups  generates  a large  quantity  of  electricity, 
capable  of  producing  heat,  &c.,  but  not  of  projecting  electricity  to  a 
great  distance ; and  that  to  accomplish  this  a battery  of  many  cups  is 


42 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


necessary.  It  was  therefore  evident  to  me  that  the  one  large  cup-bat- 
tery of  Morse  should  be  made  into  ten  or  fifteen  smaller  ones  to  make 
it  a battery  of  intensity,  so  as  to  project  the  electric  fluid.  . . . 

Accordingly  I substituted  the  battery  of  many  cups  for  the  battery  of 
one  cup.  The  remaining  defect  in  the  Morse  machine,  as  first  seen  by 
me,  was  that  the  coil  of  wire  around  the  poles  of  the  electro-magnet 
consisted  of  but  a few  turns  only,  while,  to  give  the  greatest  projectile 
power,  the  number  of  turns  should  be  increased  from  tens  to  hundreds, 
as  shoAvn  by  Professor  Henry,  in  his  paper  published  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Science , 1831.  . . . After  substituting  the  battery  of 

twenty  cups  for  that  of  a single  cup,  we  added  some  hundred  or  more 
turns  to  the  coil  of  wir.e  around  the  poles  of  the  magnet,  and  sent  a mes- 
sage through  200  feet  of  conductors  ; then  through  1,000  feet ; and  then 
through  ten  miles  of  wire  arranged  on  reels  in  my  own  lecture-room  in 
the  New  York  University,  in  the  presence  of  friends.  All  these  experi- 
ments were  repeated  with  the  original  Morse  machine,  modified  as  I 
have  stated,  by  increasing  the  number  of  battery-cups  and  the  number 
of  turns  of  wire  around  the  magnet.”* 

The  following  account  by  the  author  himself,  of  his  first  experiments, 
is  taken  from  his  own  deposition  in  the  “Bain”  case, in  February,  1851 : 
“In  the  year  1835,  I was  appointed  a professor  in  the  New  York  City 
University,  and  about  the  month  of  November  of  that  year  I occupied 
rooms  in  the  university  buildings.  There  I immediately  commenced 
with  very  limited  means  to  experiment  upon  my  invention.  My  first 
instrument  was  made  up  of  an  old  picture  or  canvas  frame  fastened  to 
a table,  the  wheels  of  an  old  wooden  clock  moved  by  a weight  to  carry 
the  paper  forward,  three  wooden  drums,  upon  one  of  which  the  paper 
was  wound  and  passed  over  the  other  two,  a wooden  pendulum  suspended 
to  the  top  piece  of  the  picture  or  stretching  frame  and  vibrating  across 
the  paper*  as  it  passed  over  the  center  wooden  drum,  a pencil  at  the 
lower  end  of  the  pendulum  in  contact  with  the  paper,  an  electro-magnet 
fastened  to  a shelf  across  the  picture  or  stretching  frame  opposite  to  an 
armature  made  fast  to  the  pendulum,  a type- rule  and  type,  for  closing 
and  breaking  the  circuit,  resting  on  an  endless  band  (composed  of  car- 
pet-binding), which  passed  over  two  wooden  rollers  moved  by  a wooden 
crank  and  carried  forward  by  points  projecting  from  the  bottom  of  the 
rule  downward  into  the  carpet-binding,  a lever  with  a small  weight  on 


* Memorial  of  S.  F.  B.  Morse , 8vo.  Washington,  1875,  pp.  15-17.  The  practical  im- 
provements introduced  by  Professor  Gale  into  the  arrangement  devised  by  Professor 
Morse  appeared  to  the  latter  so  obviously  mere  matters  of  degree  that  he  felt  confi- 
dent (after  they  were  shown)  that  he  would  himself  have  effected  them  by  simple 
trial  or  experimentation  ; and  he  does  not  appear  ever  to  have  realized  that  any  scien- 
tific principle  was  involved  in  the  difference.  But  had  he  increased  separately  either 
the  number  of  his  galvanic  elements  or  the  number  of  coils  upon  his  magnet,  he 
would  equally  have  failed  to  accomplish  the  desired  result.  The  chance  that  he  would 
have  combined  these  increments  may  be  estimated  as  very  low  indeed,  when  we  con- 
sider that  much  wiser  and  more  scientific  heads  had  failed  entirely  to  attain  such  pur- 
pose and  arrangement. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


43 


the  upper  side  and  a tooth  projecting  downward  at  one  end  operated  on 
by  the  type,  and  a metallic  fork,  also  projecting  downward  over  two  mer- 
cury cups,  and  a short  circuit  of  wire  embracing  the  helices  of  the  elec- 
tro-magnet, connected  with  the  positive  and  negative  poles  of  the  bat- 
tery, and  terminating  in  the  mercury  cups.  . . . Early  in  1836,  I 

procured  forty  feet  of  wire,  and,  putting  it  in  the  circuit,  I found  that  my 
battery  of  one  cup  was  not  sufficient  to  work  my  instrument. # . . . 

A practical  mode  of  communicating  the  impulse  of  one  circuit  to  an- 
other, such  as  that  described  in  my  patent  of  1840,  was  matured  as 
early  as  the  spring  of  1837,  and  exhibited  then  to  Professor  Gale, 
my  confidential  friend.  Up  to  the  autumn  of  1837  my  telegraphic 
apparatus  existed  in  so  rude  a form  that  I felt  reluctance  to  have  it 
seen 

In  substantial  accord  with  Professor  Morse’s  deposition  is  that  of  his 
colleague  and  assistant,  Professor  Gale,  taken  in  a previous  case,  and 
dated  April  1,  1848,  in  which  it  is  added  that  “ On  Saturday,  the  2nd 
day  of  September,  1837,  Professor  Daubeny,of  the  English  Oxford  Uni- 
versity, being  on  a visit  to  this  country,  was  invited  with  a few  friends 
to  see  the  operation  of  the  telegraph  in  its  then  rude  form  in  the  cabinet 
of  the  New  York  City  University,  where  it  then  had  been  put  up  with  a 
circuit  of  1,700  feet  of  copper  wire  stretched  back  and  forth  in  that  long 
room.  This  exhibition  of  the  telegraph,  although  of  very  rude  and  im- 
perfectly constructed  machinery,  demonstrated  to  all  present  the  prac- 
ticability of  the  invention ; and  it  resulted  in  enlisting  the  means,  the 
skill,  and  the  zeal  of  Mr.  Alfred  Vail.”  \ 

The  record  made  on  the  trial  exhibited  September  2d,  appears  not  to 
.have  been  entirely  satisfactory,  for  on  the  following  Monday  (September 
4th)  a still  better  performance  was  effected,  as  announced  by  a letter  of 
that  date  addressed  by  Professor  Morse  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
“Journal  of  Commerce,”  in  which  the  writer  says:  “I  have  the  gratifica^ 
tion  of  sending  you  a specimen  of  the  writing  of  my  telegraph,  the  actual 
transmission  of  a communication  made  this  morning,  in  a more  complete 
manner  than  on  Saturday,  and  through  the  distance  of  one-third  of  a 
mile.”  This  specimen  of  telegraphic  communication,  with  its  accompa- 
nying letter,  was  re-produced  in  the  “Journal  of  Commerce”  three  days 


* [Had  Professor  Morse  tried  50  or  100  cups,  lie  would  have  found  them  equally  in- 
sufficient : a fact  here  quite  ignored.  ] 

t Deposition  of  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse:  Feb.  6,  7,  and  8,  1851.  In  the  case  of  “ B.  B;. 
French  and  others  vs.  H.  J.  Rogers  and  others.”  Circuit  court  of  U.  S.  for  E.  Dist.  of 
Pa.  April  session  1850.  No.  104.  “ Complainant’s  Evidence.”  Ninth  answer,  pp. 

167-169. 

t Modern  Telegraphy : a pamphlet  by  Professor  Morse,  Paris,  1867,  Appendix,  p.  19. 
This  first  experimental  exhibition,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  nearly  three  months 
after  the  date  of  Cooke  and  Wheatstone’s  patent,  more  than  a month  after  their  suc- 
cessful operation  through  a mile  and  a quarter,  and  while  the  English  inventors  were 
engaged  in  constructing  a working  line  from  Paddington  to  West  Dayton.  Mr.  A. 
Vail,  a young  man  of  fine  abilities,  was  a pupil  of  Dr.  Gale’s,  and  was  by  him  intro- 
duced to  Professor  Morse. 


44 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


later,  and  forms  the  earliest  publication  of  the  actual  operation  of  the 
u Morse  telegraph.”  # The  dispatch  is  as  follows : 

2 15—  3 0 — 2 — 5 8 — 

TYVTTA  A"  ^rwrm^WN'MT 

112—0  4 — 01  8 3 1* 

This  cipher  is  thus  explained  by  the  writer,  reference  being  had  to  a 
dictionary  suitably  prepared  with  numbered  words.  “To  illustrate  by 
the  diagram,  the  word  ‘successful’  is  first  found  in  the  dictionary,  and 
its  telegraphic  number,  ‘215,’  is  set  up  in  a species  of  type  prepared  for 
the  purpose ; and  so  of  the  other  words.  The  type  then  operate  upon 
the  machinery  and  serve  to  regulate  the  times  and  intervals  of  the  pas- 
sage of  electricity.  Each  passage  of  the  fluid  causes  a pencil  at  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  wire  to  mark  the  points  as  in  the  diagram.  To  read  the 
marks,  count  the  points  at  the  bottom  of  each  line.  It  will  be  perceived 
that  two  points  come  first,  separated  by  a short  interval  from  the  next 
point.  Set  ‘2’  beneath  it.  Then  comes  one  point,  likewise  separated  by 
a short  interval.  Set  ‘1’  beneath  it.  Then  come  five  points.  Set  ‘5’ 
beneath  them.  But  the  next  interval  in  this  case  is  a long  interval;  con- 
sequently the  three  numbers  comprise  the  whole  number  ‘215.’  So  pro- 
ceed with  the  rest  until  the  numbers  are  all  set  down.  Then  by  referring 
to  the  telegraphic  dictionary,  the  words  corresponding  to  the  numbers 
are  found,  and  the  communication  read.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  by 
means  of  the  changes  upon  ten  characters,  all  words  can  be  transmit- 
ted.”! 

In  the  above  line  or  diagram  representing  the  telegraphic  dispatch, 
the  symbol  “A”  (or  inverted  V),  which  occurs  twice  in  the  lower  line, 
represents  a cipher  or  zero ; and  this  character,  when  preceding  a figure 
or  group  of  figures,  indicates  that  the  figure  or  group  is  to  be  read  as  an 
actual  number,  and  not  as  the  index  of  a word.  Counting  thus  the  num- 
ber of  Y points  in  the  above  dispatch  forming  groups  separated  by  a 
line  ( — ),  we  obtain  the  following  numbers : “215 — 36 — 2 — 58 — 112 — 04 
— 01837.”  And  this  message  when  translated  by  help  of  the  numbered 
dictionary  will  read  “ Successful  experiment  with  telegraph  September 
4 1837.” 

An  account  of  this  success,  published  in  Silliman’s  Journal  for  Octo- 
ber, added  the  statement:  “Since  the  4th  of  September,  one  thousand 
feet  more  of  wire  Ao.  23  have  been  added,  making  in  all  two  thousand 

* Notwithstanding  the  very  crude  condition  of  this  invention  in  September,  1837,  as 
compared  with  that  of  Schilling  in  1830  (or  probably  in  1823),  and  that  of  Gauss  in 
1833,  the  fact  that  intelligible  signals  were  actually  exhibited  by  it  at  this  date,  fully 
justifies  the  acceptance  of  this  period  as  the  time  of  its  reduction  to  practical  operation. 

tNew  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  Thursday,  September  7,  1837:  (on  the  editorial 
page.) 


•HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


45 


seven  hundred  feet,  more  than  half  a mile  of  a reduced  size  of  wire.  The 
register  still  recorded  accurately.  Arrangements  have  been  made  for 
constructing  new  and  accurate  machinery.  Professor  Gale,  of  the  New 
York  City  University,  is  engaged  with  Professor  Morse  in  making  some 
interesting  experiments  connected  with  this  invention,  and  to  test  the 
effect  of  length  of  wire  on  the  magnetizing  influence  of  voltaic  elec- 
tricity.” * 

Mr.  Tail  has  given  the  following  account  of  his  connection  with  the 
enterprise:  “ On  the  2d  of  September,  1837,  the  author  with  several 
others  witnessed  the  first  exhibition  of  this  electric  telegraph,,  and  soon 
after  became  a partner  with  the  inventor.  Immediate  steps  were  taken 
for  constructing  an  instrument  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  its  powers 
before  the  members  of  Congress.  This  was  done  at  the  Speedwell  Iron 
Works,  Morristown,  N.  J.  and  exhibited  in  operation  with  a circuit  of 
two  miles.  A few  days  after,  it  was  again  exhibited  at  the  University  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  for  several  days,  to  a large  number  of  invited 
ladies  and  gentlemen.”  t 

About  a month  after  this  “successful  experiment,”  (on  the  6th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1837,)  Professor  Morse  filed  in  the  United  States  Patent  Office  a 
“caveat,”  signed  October  3,  stating  in  the  petition  (dated  five  days 
earlier)  “ that  the  machinery  for  a full  practical  display  of  his  new  inven- 
tion is  not  yet  completed,  and  he  therefore  prays  protection  of  his  right 
till  he  shall  have  matured  the  machinery.”  The  specification  declares : 
“ I have  invented  a new  method  of  transmitting  and  recording  intelli- 
gence by  means  of  electro -magnetism  : . . . for  the  purpose  afore- 

said, I have  invented  the  following  apparatus,  namely : First,  a system 
of  signs  by  which  numbers,  and  consequently  words  and  sentences, 
are  signified ; second,  a set  of  type  adapted  to  regulate  and  communi- 
cate the  signs,  with  cases  for  convenient  keeping  of  the  type,  and  rules 
in  which  to  set  up  the  type ; third,  an  apparatus  called  a port-rule,  for 
regulating  the  movement  of  the  type-rules,  which  rules  by  means  of  the 
type  in  their  turn  regulate  the  times  and  intervals  of  the  passage  of 
electricity  j fourth,  a register  which  records  the  signs  permanently;  fifth, 
a dictionary  or  vocabulary  of  words  numbered  and  adapted  to  this  sys- 
tem of  telegraph ; sixth,  modes  of  laying  the  conductors  to  preserve 
them  from  injury.”  These  several  parts  are  then  more  particulary  de- 
scribed. “ The  signs  are  the  representatives  of  numerals.”  The  register 
comprises  an  electro  magnet  actuating  by  its  armature  a lever  or  pen- 
dulum carrying  a pencil  or  fountain  pen,  or  small  printing  wheel,  for 
marking  on  a strip  or  sheet  of  paper  as  already  described.  The  modes 
of  laying  the  conductors  are  by  insulating  the  wires  with  silk  or  cotton 
wrapping,  and  coating  with  caoutchouc  or  other  non-conductor,  and  also 
by  inclosing  them  in  iron,  lead,  or  wooden  tubes.  The  document  con- 
cludes : “ What  I claim  as  my  invention,  and  desire  to  secure  by  letters. 


Silliman’s  Am.  Jour.  Sci.  October,  1837,  vol.  xxxiii,  p„  187. 
+A.  Vail’s  Electro- Magnetic  Telegraph,  8vo.  1845,  p.  154. 


46 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


piftent  and  to  protect  for  one  year  by  a caveat,  is  a method  of  record- 
ing permanently  electrical  signs  which  by  means  of  metallic  wires  or 
other  good  conductors  of  electricity,  convey  intelligence  between  two  or 
more  places.” 

Of  the  above  described  apparatus,  the  two  most  important  features 
were  those  numbered  the  first  and  the  fourth, — the  system  of  signs  and 
the  recording  device;  and  though  neither  of  these  presented  much  orig- 
inality, the  method  of  the  former  being  that  long  established  for  naval 
signals,  and  the  clock-moved  fillet  of  the  latter  being  essentially  the  ar- 
rangement long  employed  for  self-registering  instruments  generally,  yet 
the  combination  of  these  parts  with  the  others  undoubtedly  possessed 
great  practical  merit ; and  none  the  less  that  the  several  elements  were 
evidently  worked  out  independently  by  the  inventor.  It  is  not  a little 
remarkable  however,  that  of  the  specified  six  parts  of  this  earliest  in- 
vention of  Professor  Morse,  not  one  enters  into  the  established  “ Morse 
telegraph”  of  to-day.  That  feature  regarded  by  the  inventor  as  its  vital 
and  fundamental  characteristic  (the  fourth),  the  subject  of  his  formal 
“ claim,”  survived  the  longest;  but  after  undergoing  considerable  modi, 
ficatiou,  it  has  for  more  than  twenty  years  been  neglected  and  aban- 
doned. 

In  response  to  a public  circular  which  had  been  issued  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  March  10, 1837,  “with  a view  of  obtaining  information  in  re- 
gard to  the  propriety  of  establishing  a system  of  telegraphs  for  the  United 
States,”  Professor  Morse  addressed  a communication  to  the  honorable  Sec- 
retary, dated  September  27, 1837,  pointing  out  the  disadvantages  of  the  old 
mechanical  telegraphs  as  being  “useless  the  greater  part  of  the  time:” 
(as  in  foggy  weather  and  during  the  night.)  He  then  proceeded  : “Hav- 
ing invented  an  entirely  new  mode  of  telegraphic  communication,  which 
so  far  as  experiments  have  yet  been  made  with  it,  promises  results  of 
almost  marvelous  character,  I beg  leave  to  present  to  the  department 
a brief  account  of  its  chief  characteristics.”  After  stating  that  at  the 
time  when  he  first  conceived  the  thought  (some  five  years  previously)  he 
had  “ planned  a system  of  signs  and  an  apparatus  to  carry  it  into  effect,” 
he  added,  “ although  the  rest  of  the  machinery  was  planned,  yet  from 
the  pressure  of  unavoidable  duties  I was  compelled  to  postpone  my  ex- 
periments, and  was  not  able  to  test  the  whole  plan  until  within  a few 
weeks.  The  result  has  realized  my  most  sanguine  expectations.” 

The  construction  of  a more  complete  apparatus  was  carried  on  at  the 
Speedwell  Iron  Works  of  the  Messrs.  Tail,  near  Morristown,  while  Pro- 
fessor Gale  pursued  his  experiments  at  the  New  York  City  University.* 

Having  finished  his  laborious  task  of  numbering  a dictionary,  Octo- 
ber 24,  1837,  Professor  Morse  gave  more  attention  to  the  Yail  Works.! 

* Professor  Morse,  writing  to  Mr.  Alfred  Vail,  October  7,  1837,  says  : “ Professor  Gale’s 
services  will  be  invaluable  to  us,  and  I am  glad  that  he  is  disposed  to  enter  into  the 
matter  with  zeal.” 

f u The  dictionary  is  at  last  done.  You  cannot  conceive  how  much  labor  there  has 
been  in  .it,  but  it  is  accomplished;  and  we  can  now  talk  or  write  anything  by  num- 
bers.” Professor  Morse  to  A.  Vail,  October  24,  1837.  (Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap, 
viii,  p.  326.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


47 


On  his  return  from  a visit  to  the  works,  lie  wrote  back  to  Mr.  Yail,  on 
the  13th  of  November,  1837,  “I  arrived  just  in  time  to  see  the  experi- 
ment Professor  Gale  was  making  with  the  entire  ten  miles,  and  you  will 
be  gratified  and  agreeably  surprised  when  I inform  you  that  the  result 
now  is  that  with  a little  addition  of  wire  to  the  coils  of  the  small  mag- 
net which  I had  all  along  used,  the  power  was  as  great  apparently 
through  ten  as  through  three  miles.  This  result  has  surprised  us  all 
(yet  there  is  no  mistake),  and  I conceive  settles  the  whole  matter.” 

In  a second  communication  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dated 
November  28,'  1837,  Professor  Morse  announced . this  encouraging  suc- 
cess: “ I informed  you  that  I had  succeeded  in  marking  permanently 
and  intelligibly  at  the  distance  of  half  a mile.  Professor  Gale  of  our  uni- 
versity, and  Mr.  Alfred  Vail,  of  the  Speedwell  Iron  Works,  near  Mor- 
ristown, N.  J.  are  now  associated  with  me  in  the  scientific  and  mechan- 
ical parts  of  the  invention.*  We  have  procured  several  miles  of  wire, 
and  I am  happy  to  announce  to  you  that  our  success  has  thus  far 
been  complete.  At  a distance  of  five  nyles,  with  a common  Cruick- 
shanks7  battery  of  eighty-seven  plates  (four  by  three  and  a half  inches, 
each  plate),  the  marking  was  as  perfect  on  the  register  as  in  the  first 
distance  of  half  a mile.  We  have  recently  added  five  miles  more 
(making  in  all  ten  miles)  with  the  same  result ; and  we  now  have  no 
doubt  of  its  effecting  a similar  result  at  any  distance.” 

On  the  completion  of  the  new  receiving  and  recording  instruments  at 
the  Speedwell  Iron  Works,  an  experimental  exhibition  at  the  place,  with 
three  miles  of  coated  copper  wire,  extended  around  a large  factory -room, 
was  made  in  the  presence  of  a few  friends,  on  the  Gth  of  January,  1838 ; 
and  on  the  11th  of  January  another  exhibition  was  freely  opened  to  the 
public.  A report  of  the  trial  in  a Morristown  Journal  explains  how 
“the  words  were  put  up  into  numbers  through  the  dictionary;  the 
numbers  were  set  up  in  the  telegraph  type  in  about  the  same  time  ordi- 
narily occupied  in  setting  up  the  same  in  a printing  office ; they  were 
then  all  passed  complete  by  the  port-rule ;”  and  being  automatically 
recorded  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  wire,  u the  marks  or  numbers  were 
easily  legible,  and  by  means  of  the  dictionary  were  resolved  again  into 
words.” 

Shortly  after  this,  Professor  Morse  (or  his  assistant,  Mr.  Yail)  devised 
for  the  first  time  a system  of  alphabetic  symbols  for  liis  telegraph.  It 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  vertical  recording-lever  of  the  original 
Morse  appararatus  was  so  arranged  that  it  must  necessarily  mark  a con- 
tinuous line,  either  straight  or  zig-zag.  It  was  never  devised  for  an 
u alphabet,”  and  was  incapable  of  an  intermittent  dot  or  dash  marking. 
The  new  instrument  completed  by  Mr.  Yail,  and  first  operated  on  the 

* In  a letter  to  the  Hon.  Francis  O.  J.  Smith,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Com- 
merce, House  of  Representatives,  dated  February  15,  1838,  Professor  Morse  writes: 
“It  is  proper  that  I should  here  state  that  the  patent-right  is  now  jointly  owned  in 
unequal  shares  by  myself,  Professor  Gale,  of  New  York  City  University,  and  Messrs. 
Alfred  and  George  Yail.’7  The  patent  was  not  actually  issued  till  more  than  two  years 
later. 


48 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Gtli  of  January,  1838,  was  differently  organized,  tlie  recording-lever  being 
for  the  first  time  arranged  horizontally,  and  having  an  .up  and  down 
movement,  with  an  upright  magnet  under  one  end,  and  the  moving  fillet 
of  paper  above  the  other. ^ 

On  the  24th  of  January,  1838,  an  exhibition  of  the  new  apparatus  and 
of  its  improved  operation,  was  given  at  the  New  York  City  University > 
in  the  long  room  of  the  geological  cabinet,  through  ten  miles  of  wire; 
one  of  the  five-mile  reels  being  placed  in  the  outgoing  portion  of  the  cir- 
cuit, and  the  other  five-mile  reel  on  the  returning  line.  On  this  occasion 
for  the  first  time  the  words  transmitted  were  entered,  and  recorded,  in 
the  new  alphabet  without  the  aid  of  the  numbered  dictionary.!  The 
New  York  Journal  of  Commerce  in  noticing  this  performance  remarked : 
“ Professor  Morse  has  recently  improved  on  his  mode  of  marking,  by 
which  he  can  dispense  altogether  with  the  telegraphic  dictionary,  using 
letters  instead  of  numbers  ; and  he  can  transmit  ten* * * §  words  per  minute, 
which  is  more  than  double  the  number  which  can  be  transmitted  by 
means  of  the  dictionary.”! 

The  instrument  thus  brought  to  a satisfactory  working  condition,  was 
designed  to  be  sent  to  Washington  for  exhibition  to  officers  of  the  Na- 
tional Government,  with  a view  of  obtaining  a grant  from  Congress  for 
the  construction  of  an  actual  line  of  telegraph  between  two  cities.  On 
the  way  from  New  York,  the  apparatus  with  its  reels  of  wire  was  ex- 
hibited at  Philadelphia,  before  a committee  of  the  Franklin  Institute 
(at  its  hall),  on  the  8th  of  February,  1838.  The  committee  (whose  chair- 
man was  Prof.  Robert  M.  Patterson,  then  Director  of  the  United  States 
Mint  at  Philadelphia),  after  a careful  examination,  reported : 

“The  operation  of  the  telegraph  as  exhibited  to  us  was  very  satis- 
factory. The  power  given  to  the  magnet  at  the  register  through  a length 
of  wire  of  ten  miles,  was  abundantly  sufficient  for  the  movements  re" 
quired  to  mark  the  signals.  The  communication  of  this  power  was  in- 
stantaneous.” Referring  then  to  the  probable  difficulties  of  efficient  in- 
sulation, the  committee  proceeded:  “Mr.  Morse  has  proposed  several 
plans;  the  last  being  to  cover  the  wires  with  cotton  thread,  then  varnish 
them  thickly  with  gum-elastic,  and  inclose  the  whole  in  leaden  tubes. 
More  practical  and  economical  means  will  probably  be  devised ; but  the 
fact  is  not  to  be  concealed  that  any  effectual  plan  must  be  very  expen- 
sive^ Doubts  have  been  raised  as  to  the  distance  to  which  the  electri- 

* On  the  question  of  the  origin  and  invention  of  the  “ Morse-Alphabet,”  see  “Sup- 
plement,” Note  G. 

tThe  message  sent  through  the  wire  on  this  occasion  (Wednesday,  January  24, 
1838,)  is  spoken  of  as  “the  first  sentence  that  was  ever  recorded  by  the  telegraph.” 
(Prime’s  Life  of  Morse , 8vo.  N.  Y.  1875,  p.  331.)  It  was  the  first  employment  of  the 
rectilinear  dot  and  dash  symbols. 

{Nfew  York  Journal  of  Commerce  of  January  29,  1833. 

§ [It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Gauss  and  Weber,  as  also  Steinheil,  at  this  date  had 
in  actual  and  successful  operation  telegraph  lines  several  miles  in  length,  whose  naked 
wires  through  the  air  were  insulated  only  at  their  points  of  support.  Although  this 
important  discovery  of  Weber  had  been  in  practical  and  public  operation  for  about  five 
years,  no  particular  account  of  it  seems  to  have  been  at  that  time  published  in  this, 
country.  ] 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


49 


eity  of  an  ordinary  battery  can  be  made  efficient;  but  your  committee 
think  that  no  serious  difficulty  is  anticipated  as  to  this  point.  The  ex- 
periment with  the  wire  wound  in  a coil  may  not  in  deed  be  deemed  con- 
elusive.  ^ ...  It  may  be  proper  to  state  that  the  idea  of  using  elec- 
tricity for  telegraphic  purposes  has  presented  itself  to  several  individu- 
als, and  that  it  may  be  difficult  to  settle  among  them  the  question  of  orig- 
inality. The  celebrated  Gauss  has  a telegraph  of  this  kind  in  actual 
operation,  for  communicating  signals  between  the  University  of  Got- 
tingen and  his  magnetic  observatory  in  its  vicinity.  ...  In  con- 
clusion, the  committee  beg  leave  to  state  their  high  gratification  with 
the  exhibition  of  Professor  Morse’s  telegraph,  and  their  hope  that  means 
may  be  given  to  him  to  subject  it  to  the  test  of  an  actual  experiment 
made  between  stations  at  a considerable  distance  from  each  other.”  * 

About  the  middle  of  February,  (1838,)  Professor  Morse  arrived  in  Wash- 
ington with  his  instrument  and  his  reels  of  wire,  and  exhibited  the  ope- 
ration of  the  telegraph  to  many  dignitaries  of  the  e xecutive  and  legisla 
tive  branches  of  government.  A memorial  was  indented  to  Congress 
by  the  inventor,  asking  an  appropriation  to  defray  the  expense  of  an 
experimental  line  between  two  cities;  which  being  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Commerce  by  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  was  favorably 
reported  by  that  committee  April  6,  through  its  chairman,  Hon.  Francis 
0.  J.  Smith.  “ The  committee  agree  unanimously  that  it  is  worthy  to 
m gross  the  attention  and  means  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  full 
extent  that  may  be  necessary  to  put  the  invention  to  the  most  decisive 
best  that  can  be  desirable;”  and  in  accordance  with  this  opinion,  “the 
committee  recommend  an  appropriation  of  thirty  thousand  dollars,  to  be 
expended  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  ot  t lie  Treasury;  and  to 
diis  end  submit  herewith  a bill.”  This  bill  however  failed  to  receive 
bhe  support  of  the  majority,  and  a favorable  action  on  this  measure  was 
lot  obtained  for  several  years. 

Meanwhile  Professor  Morse  had  been  engaged  with  a killful  attorney 
n preparing  papers  with  a view  to  obtaining  a patent.  The  specifica- 
tion (signed  April  7,  1838)  includes,  in  addition  to  the  several  parts  de- 
scribed in  the  earlier  caveat  of  October  3,  1837,  the  recei*tly-de  vised 
system  of  alphabetic  signs,  a rotary  port-rule  for  continuous  action 
md  a combination  of  circuits  or  electro-magnetic  “ relays.”  The  inven- 
tion is  described  as  “an  application  of  electro-magnetism  in  producing 
sounds  and  signs,  or  either,  and  also  for  recording  permanently  by  the 
same  means  . . . any  signs  thus  produced.”  “ It  consists  of  the  fol- 
owing  parts:  First,  a circuit  of  electric  or  galvanic  conductors,”  etc. 

I Second,  a system  of  signs  by  which  numerals  and  words  represented  by 
minerals,  and  thereby  sentences  of  words,  as  well  as  of  numerals,  and  let- 
ers  of  any  extent  and  combination  of  each,  are  communicated.”  “Third, 
i set  of  type  adaxited  to  regulate  the  communication  of  the  above-men- 
tioned signs.”  “ Fourth,  an  apparatus  called  the  port-rule  [straight  or 

* Journal  of  Franklin  Institute,  February,  1838,  vol.  xxi,  n.  s.  pp.  10(5-108. 

4 E T 


50 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


circular]  which  regulates  the  movement  of  the  type.”  u Fifth , a signal- 
lever  which  breaks  and  connects  the  circuit  of  conductors.”*  u Sixth,  a 
register  which  records  permanently  the  signs  communicated.”  u Sev- 
enth, a dictionary,  or  vocabulary  of  words,  to  which  are  prefixed  nu- 
merals.” u Eighth,  modes  of  laying  the  circuit  of  conductors.” 

After  filing  his  application  in  the  Patent  Office,  in  order  not  to  be 
forestalled  in  his  intended  efforts  to  obtain  patents  in  Europe,  by  his 
own  patent  being  sent  and  published  abroad,  Professor  Morse  filed  a 
request  that  its  issue  might  be  suspended  till  his  return. 

Although  the  favorable  report  on  the  Morse  memorial  to  Congress, 
made  to  the  House  of  Representatives  by  its  committee,  failed  to  secure 
the  appropriation  recommended,  Mr.  Francis  O.  J.  Smith,  the  chairman, 
was  so  well  satisfied  of  the  merits  of  the  new  telegraph,  that  on  leaving 
Congress  he  at  once  became  a partner  in  the  enterprise,  and  accompanied 
Professor  Morse  in  his  departure  for  London,  May  16,  1838.  f 

In  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  Wheatstone  and  Cooke,  who  ha  d 
obtained  an  English  patent  June  12, 1837,  Professor  Morse’s  application 
for  a patent  in  Great  Britain  was  refused  by  the  attorney- general,  Sir 
John  Campbell,  July  12,  1838,  (after  the  exaction  of  heavy  fees,)  on  an 
unquestionable  judicial  quibble.  The  ostensible  ground  of  rejection  was 
clearly  not  warranted  by  the  spirit  or  intent  of  the  English  patent  law, 
as  the  details  of  the  patent  sought,  had  never  been  published  either  in 
this  country  or  abroad.]: 

The  success  of  the  American  inventor  in  France  was  practically  no 
greater  $ for  although  a nominal  patent  for  that  country  was  obtained 
on  August  18,  1838,  it  was  rendered  nugatory  by  the  ingenious  legal 

* Although  the  “ si  glial -lever  ” is  here  specially  indicated,  it  differs  widely  in  con- 
struction, arrangement,  and  operation,  from  the  modern  signal-lever  or  transmitting 
key ; having  only  the  function  in  common  with  it  of  a circuit- breaker.  In  his  pam- 
phlet, published  at  Paris  in  1867,  giving  an  account  of  his  invention,  Professor  Morse 
says:  “At  the  time  of  the  construction  of  this  first  telegraphic  instrument,  I had  not 
conceived  the  idea  of  the  present  key  manipulator  dependent  on  the  skill  of  the  opera- 
tor, but  I presumed  that  the  accuracy  of  the  imprinting  of  signs  could  only  be  secured 
hy  mechanical  mathematical  arrangements  and  by  automatic  process.”  ( Modern  Tele- 
graphy, etc.  p.  25.)  In  his  argument  presented  to  Sir  John  Campbell,  the  attorney- 
general  of  England,  July  12,  1838,  he  urges  as  an  evidence  of  characteristic  novelty, 
“These  types  form  such  an  essential  part  of  my  invention,  that  without  them  the  prac- 
tical utility  and  value  of  my  invention  is  for  the  most  part  destroyed,  and  full  one- 
half  of  the  mechanism  is  disconnected  from  it,  and  is  of  no  use  in  it.”  The  Morse  lever 
must  not  therefore  be  confounded  with  the  existing  finger-key.  “ The  spring-lever 
key,  as  at  present  used  in  the  Morse  office,  was  suggested  by  Mr.  Thomas  C.  Avery,  of 
New  York,  but  has  received  various  modifications.”  (Turnbull’s  Electro-Magnetic 
Telegraph , 1852,  pp.  49,  50.) 

t “With  this  understanding  a partnership  was  formed  between  Professor  Morse, 
Professor  Gale,  Mr.  Alfred  Tail,  and  Hon.  F.  O.  J.  Smith,  by  the  terms  of  which  it  was 
stipulated  that  Mr.  Smith  should  go  to  Europe  with  Professor  Morse,  and  secure 
patents  for  the  telegraph  in  such  countries  as  it  should  be  practicable  for  him  to  do 
so.”  (Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap,  viii,  p.  344.) 

t Notwithstanding  their  illiberal  interference  with  Morse’s  application  in  1838, 
Messrs.  William  F.  Cooke  and  Charles  Wheatstone  had  the  “self-possession”  eighteen 
months  later  each  to  write  a letter  to  Professor  Morse,  (dated  January  17,  1840,)  beg- 
ging him  to  join  them  in  their  efforts  to  obtain  an  American  patent ! As  a character- 
istic illustration  of  official  contrast,  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Wheatstone  (contrary  to  their 
expectations),  on  their  own  application,  secured  an  American  patent  without  opposi- 
tion or  obstruction  June  10,  1840,  ten  days  before  the  issue  of  Morse’s  patent,  applied 
for  more  than  twro  years  earlier. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


51 


conditions,  first,  that  to  prevent  forfeiture  the  patented  invention  must 
be  carried  into  successful  operation  in  France  within  two  years;  and 
secondly,  that  all  private  persons,  companies,  or  corporations,  were  pro- 
hibited from  putting  a telegraph  into  operation  in  France.  Disappointed 
in  various  promising  expectations,  and  discouraged  by  repeated  failures, 
Professor  Morse  returned  to  New  York,  April  15,  1839. 

In  May,  1839,  he  visited  Princeton,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  Professor 
Henry  and  obtaining  from  him  the  solution  of  certain  doubts; — his  col- 
league, Dr.  Gale,  being  then  absent  on  business.  During  this  his  first 
interview  with  Henry,  occupying  an  afternoon  and  evening,  he  received 
from  the  full  and  frank  expositions  of  his  host  every  satisfaction  he  de- 
sired; and  he  had  the  great  encouragement  of  hearing  from  the  lips  of 
that  cautious  investigator,  that  he  foresaw  no  difficulty  in  magnetizing 
soft  iron  through  a wire  u at  the  distance  of  a hundred  miles  or  more.”* 

The  application  filed  by  Professor  Morse  in  the  United  States  Patent 
Office,  before  he  visited  Europe,  was  allowed,  and  issued  as  a patent 
June  20,  1840.  (No.  1647.)  This  patent  comprised  nine  claims  : 1,  the 
combination  of  type,  rule,  lever,  &c. ; 2,  the  recording  cylinder,  &c. ; * 3, 
the  types,  signs,  &c. ; 4,  the  making  and  breaking  of  the  circuit  by 
mechanism,  &c. ; 5,  the  combination  of  successive  circuits  ; 6,  the  appli- 
cation of  electro  magnets  to  several  levers,  &c. ; 7,  the  mode  and  process 
of  recording  by  the  use  of  electro-magnetism ; 8,  the  combination  and 
arrangement  of  electro- magnets  in  one  or  more  circuits,  with  armatures 
for  transmitting  signs ; and  9,  the  combination  of  the  mechanism  de- 
scribed, with  a dictionary  of  numbered  words. 

The  appropriation  asked  for  from  Congress,  though  earnestly  pressed 
at  successive  sessions,  failed  to  obtain  the  sanction  of  the  House  of 
Representatives;  until  after  a wearisome  delay  of  five  years,  a bill  was 
finally  carried  through  Congress,  March  3, 1843,  authorizing  an  expendi 
ture  of  u the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars,  . . . for  testing  the 

capacity  and  usefulness  of  the  system  of  electro-magnetic  telegraphs 
invented  by  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  of  New  York.” 

The  stations  selected  for  connection  by  the  new  telegraph  were  Wash- 
ington and  Baltimore,  about  forty  miles  apart.  In  order  to  form  two 
complete  circuits  for  this  distance,  one  hundred  and  sixty  miles  of  cop- 
per wire,  covered  with  cotton,  were  ordered  and  delivered  at  New  York 
City.  Before  inclosing  the  four  lines  in  pipes,  as  contemplated,  Professor 
Morse  prudently  determined  to  experiment  on  the  magnetizing  effect 
through  this  continuous  length  of  insulated  wire!  The  result  of  this 
experiment,  which  fully  justified  the  expectation  of  Henry  expressed  to 
him  four  years  before,  is  thus  stated  in  a letter  addressed  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  August  10,  1843 : 

* Prime’s  Life  of  Morse , chap,  x,  pp.  421,  422.  Dr.  Prime  says  of  this  visit,  “ A few 
days  after  receiving  Professor  Henry’s  kind  invitation,.  Professor  Morse  went  to  Prince- 
ton, and  passing  the  afternoon  and  evening  with  the  great  philosopher,  returned  the 
next  morning  to  New  York.” 


52 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


“The  experiments  alluded  to  were  tried  on  Tuesday,  and  with  per- 
fect success.  I had  prepared  a galvanic  battery  of  three  hundred  pairs, 
in  order  to  have  ample  power  at  command ; but  to  my  great  gratifica- 
tion, I found  that  one  hundred  pairs  were  sufficient  to  produce  all  the 
effects  I desired  through  the  whole  distance  of  one  hundred  and  sixty 
miles.  It  may  be  well  to  observe  that  the  hundred  and  sixty  miles  of 
wire  are  to  be  divided  into  four  lengths  of  forty  miles  each,  forming  a four- 
fold cord  from  Washington  to  Baltimore.  Two  wires  form  a circuit $ the 
electricity  therefore  in  producing  its  effects  at  Washington  from  Balti- 
more, passes  from  Baltimore  to  Washington  and  back  again  to  Baltimore, 
of  course  travelling  eighty  miles  to  produce  its  result.  One  hundred 
and  sixty  miles  therefore  gives  me  an  actual  distance  of  eighty  miles ; 
double  the  distance  from  Washington  to  Baltimore.  The  result  then  of 
my  experiments  on  Tuesday,  is  that  a battery  of  only  a hundred  pairs  at 
Washington,  will  operate  a telegraph  on  my  plan  eighty  miles  distant 
with  certainty,  and  without  requiring  any  intermediate  station.77 

As  it  was  part  of  the  original  plan  (as  set  forth  in  the  caveat  of  1837) 
to  lay  the  conducting  wires  underground,  Professor  Morse,  in  1843,  de- 
vised a method  of  forming  a lead  pipe  around  the  group  of  prepared  and 
insulated  wires,  that  is  of  introducing  the  compound  cord  into  the  pipe 
in  the  process  of  its  construction.  He  obtained  a patent  for  this  project 
October  25,  1843,  (No.  3316,)  claiming  u the  method  of  introducing  wires 
into  hollow  pipes  whilst  making  the  same,  by  introducing  the  wires 
through  a hollow  mandrel  on  which  the  pipe  is  made.77  This  process 
was  practically  carried  out,  though  with  the  extreme  risk  of  constantly 
impairing  the  insulation  of  the  wires  by  the  operation. 

Professor  Gale  has  given  the  following  account  of  the  method  of  lay- 
ing the  telegraph  line  and  of  the  result.  “A  plow  was  used,  with  a share 
running  two  and  a half  feet  deep,  and  carrying  a coil  of  insulated  wire 
inclosed  in  a coil  of  lead  pipe  which  the  plow  deposited  in  the  ground 
and  covered  as  the  plow  progressed.  Forty  miles  of  lead  pipe  were  made 
in  New  York  in  the  autumn  of  1843,  and  shipped  to  Baltimore  in  the  end 
of  November.  Up  to  this  date  I had  been  engaged  in  New  York  inspecting 
the  manufacture  of  the  lead  pipe  and  charging  the  same  with  the  insulated 
wire  fed  into  the  pipe  by  machinery  while  the  pipe  was  drawn.  I reached 
Baltimore  in  the  early  part  of  December,  and  learned  that  the  party  had 
nearly  reached  the  Belay  House.  Nine  miles  had  been  laid ; on  inspection 
of  which,  not  one  mile  of  wire  was  found  to  be  sufficiently  insulated  to 
carry  the  electric  current  from  end  to  end  of  the  reach.77* 

The  plan  was  finally  abandoned  early  in  1844,  after  more  than  half  of 

* Morse  Memorial,  Washington,  1875,  pp.  18, 19.  Steinlieil,  in  1837,  remarked : “Numer- 
ous trials  to  insulate  wires  and  to  conduct  them  below  the  surface  of  the  ground  have 
led  me  to  the  conviction  that  such  attempts  can  never  answer  at  great  distances,  in- 
asmuch as  our  most  perfect  insulators  are  at  best  hut  very  bad  conductors.  And  since 
in  a wire  of  very  great  length  the  surface  in  contact  with  the  so-called  insulator  is 
u icommonly  large  when  compared  with  the  section  of  the  metallic  conductor,  there 
necessarily  arises  a gradual  diminution  of  force.”  (Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity, 
etc.  April,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  510.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


53 


the  appropriation  had  been  expended.*  In  March,  1844,  it  was  decided 
to  put  the  wires  on  poles,  after  the  manner  successfully  adopted  by 
Weber  at  Gottingen  eleven  years  before.  The  different  plans  of  insulat- 
ing support  proposed,  were  submitted  by  Professor  Morse  to  Henry  for 
his  opinion,  and  he  decided  in  favor  of  Mr.  Ezra  Cornell’s  plan  of  sepa- 
rating the  wires  as  far  apart  as  convenient,  and  attaching  each  wire  to 
an  independent  glass  insulator,  t The  line  was  accordingly  erected  on 
this  plan ; and  by  the  middle  or  latter  part  of  May,  1844,  was  completed 
frem  Washington  to  Baltimore.  On  the  24th  of  that  month,  the  first 
formal  message  was  transmitted  through  it  between  the  two  cities,  and 
recorded  by  the  electro -magnet  in  the  dot-and-dash  alphabet-!  From 
this  time  the  success  of  the  electric  telegraph  in  the  United  States  was 
assured,  and  its  extension  over  our  broad  domain  was  comparatively 
rapid. 

This  prolonged  review  of  the  history  of  the  u Morse  telegraph”  has 
been  ventured  upon  in  this  connection,  partly  to  bring  out  into  just  re- 
lation and  relief  one  or  two  important  points,  and  in  part  to  illustrate 
the  gradual  progress  of  development  of  the  system,  in  the  career  of  a 
single  inventor.  With  that  strong  u subjectivity”  (perhaps  essential  to 
the  success  both  of  the  artist  and  of  the  artisan)  which  characterized 
him,  Professor  Morse  always  believed  his  invention  to  have  been  prac- 
tically full-fledged  at  its  birth,  or  rather  at  its  conception ; and  quite 
unconscious  of  the  slow  and  small  advances  derived  from  gathered  ex- 
perience or  external  suggestion,  failed  seemingly  to  realize  how  com- 
pletely his  earlier  methods  were  discarded  and  displaced  by  later  improve- 
ments^ 

* Professor  Morse  says:  “ It  was  abandoned,  among  other  reasons,  in  consequence  of 
ascertaining  that  in  the  process  of  inserting  the  wire  into  the  leaden  tubes  (which  was 
at  the  moment  of  forming  the  tube  from  the  lead  at  melting  heat)  the  insulated  cover- 
ing of  the  wires  had  become  charred  at  various  and  numerous  points  of  the  line  to  such 
an  extent  that  greater  delay  and  expense  would  be  necessary  to  repair  the  damage 
than  to  put  the  wire  on  posts.”  (Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap,  xi,  p.  478.) 

tMr.  Cornell  afterward  distinguished  himself  by  devoting,  in  1865,  half  a million  of 
dollars  from  the  profits  of  his  telegraphic  enterprises,  to  the  founding  at  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 
of  the  university  bearing  his  name.  He  subsequently  contributed  nearly  as  much 
more  ; making  his  total  endowment  in  the  neighborhood  of  a million  dollars. 

tTlie  completion  of  the  experimental  telegraph  authorized  by  act  of  Congress  was 
thus  formally  announced  by  Professor  Morse  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under 
whose  direction  the  appropriation  had  been  placed  : “ Washington,  June  3,  1844.  Sir  : 
I have  the  honor  to  report  that  the  experimental  essay  authorized  by  the  act  of  Con- 
gress on  March  3,  1843,  appropriating  30,000  dollars  for  testing  my  system  of  electro- 
magnetic telegraph,  ‘ and  of  such  length  and  between  such  points  as  shall  test  its 
practicability  and  utility,’  has  been  made  between  Washington  and  Baltimore,  a dis- 
tance of  forty  miles,  connecting  the  Capitol  in  the  former  city  with  the  railroad  depot 
in  Pratt  street  in  the  latter  city.  . . .”  This  was  six  years  after  the  English  line 

of  thirteen  miles  had  been  in  operation.  While  Lomond,  in  1787,  and  Steinheil,  in  1837 
had  employed  but  a single  wire  for  transmitting  messages  from  either  end,  Morse,  in 
1844,  required  two  circuits  of  four  wires  for  the  same  perfonnance  ; cue  pair  of  wires  for 
the  outward  and  one  pair  for  the  inward  passage. 

$ In  a letter  addressed  to  Donald  Mann,  esq.,  December,  1852,  Professor  Morse  rather 
quaintly  remark^:  “In  elaborating  the  invention  in  its  earlier  stages,  many  modifica- 
tions of  its  various  parts  were  tried,  and  many  of  the  supposed  improvements  then 
deemed  necessary  to  its  perfection  have  since  been  found  unnecessary  and  useless.” 
( American  Telegraph  Magazine,  December  15,  1852,  vol.  i,  No.  3,  p.  130.) 


54 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Mose's  “ first  conception .” — After  a three  years’  sojourn  in  Europe,  from 
1829  to  1832,  spent  principally  in  Italy,  devoted  exclusively  to  the  study 
and  pursuit  of  his  art  as  painter,  Mr.  Morse  on  his  homeward  voyage 
from  France  in  the  ship  Sully,  formed  the  acquaintance  of  Dr.  Charles. 
T.  Jackson,  of  Boston,  a fellow- passenger.  He  first  “ conceived  the  idea” 
of  an  electric  telegraph  on  the  19th  of  October,  1832,  from  a conversa- 
tion with  Dr.  Jackson  on  the  subject ; and  the  suggestion  impressed  him 
with  the  surprise  of  a truly  new  conception.  His  first  thought  appears 
to  have  been  the  application  of  electricity  or  galvanism  to  a chemically 
recording  telegraph;  and  this  project,  laid  aside  for  that  of  the  electro- 
magnet, was  afterward  revived  and  cherished,  till  in  1849,  he  procured  a 
patent  for  it,  as  already  stated. 

Professor  Morse  in  his  letter  to  Dr.  C.  T.  Jackson,  dated  September  18, 
1837,  controverting  the  claim  of  the  latter  to  a share  in  the  invention  of 
the  electric  telegraph,  says : “ I lose  no  time  in  endeavoring  to  disabuse 

your  mind  of  an  error  into  which  it  has  fallen  in  regard  to  the  electro- 
magnetic telegraph.  You  speak  of  it  as  4 our  electric  telegraph,’  and  as 
a ‘mutual  discovery.’  ...  1 have  a distinct  recollection  of  the  man- 

ner, the  place,  and  the  moment,  when  the  thought  of  making  an  electric 
wire  the  means  of  communicating  intelligence,  first  came  into  my  mind. 

. . . We  were  conversing  on  the  recent  scientific  discoveries  in  elec- 
tro-magnetism ; . . . I then  remarked,  this  being  so,  if  the  presence 

of  electricity  can  be  made  visible  in  any  desired  part  of  the  circuit,  I 
see  up  reason  why  intelligence  might  not  be  transmitted  instantaneously 
by  electricit3T.  You  gave  your  assent  that  it  was  possible.  ...  I 
asked  you  if  there  was  not  some  mode  of  decomposition  which  could  be 
turned  to  account.  You  suggested  the  following  experiment,  which  we 
agreed  should  be  tried  together,  if  we  could  meet  for  that  purpose.  It 
was  this:  to  decompose  by  electricity  glauber  salts  upon  the  paper 
which  was  first  to  be  colored  with  turmeric.”  The  writer  then  argues, 
that  this  plan  not  having  been  jointly  tried,  and  an  entirely  different 
device  (the  electro  magnet)  having  been  adopted  by  himself,  there  was  no 
joint  invention.* 

In  his  letter  to  Dr.  0.  T.  Jackson,  dated  December  7,  1837,  Professor 
Morse  says:  “I  consulted  you  to  ascertain  if  there  were  not  some  sub- 
stance easily  decomposed  by  the  simple  contact  of  a wire  in  an  electric 
state.  It  was  then,  and  not  till  then,  that  you  suggested  turmeric  paper 
dipped  in  a solution  of  sulphate  of  soda.  . . . I do  not  charge  yon 

with  intentional  neglect;  I readily  allow  your  excuses  for  not  trying  the 
experiments;  but  these  excuses  do  not  alter  the  fact  that  your  neglect 
retarded  my  invention,  and  compelled  me  after  five  years’  delay,  to  con- 
sider the  result  of  that  experiment  as  a failure,  and  consequently  to  de- 

* Amos  Kendall’s  Full  Exposure  of  Dr.  Charles  T.  Jackson’s  Pretensions , etc.  First  edi- 
tion, N.  Y.  1850.  Second  edition,  printed  in  Paris,  1867  : pp.  64,  65.  Neither  Professor 
Morse  nor  Dr.  Jackson  was  aware  that  the  project  had  been  suggested  seventeen  years 
before,  by  Dr.  J.  R.  Coxe,  of  Philadelphia;  and  that  it  had  been  successfully  tried 
four  or  live  years  before,  by  Mr.  H.  G.  Dyar,  of  New  York. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH.  55 

vise  another  mode  of  applying  my  apparatus, — a mode  entirely  original 
with  me.”  # 

In  a letter  to  Mr.  Alfred  Vail,  not  long  after  having  formed  a partner- 
ship with  that  gentleman,  he  wrote : u I claim  to  be  the  original 
suggester  and  inventor  of  the  electric  magnetic  telegraph,  on  the  19th 
of  October,  1832,  on  board  the  packet- ship  Sully,  on  my  voyage  from 
France  to  the  United  States,  and  consequently  the  inventor  of  the  first 
really  practicable  telegraph  on  the  electric  principle.”  t Some  ten  years 
later  he  wrote  to  Professor  Walker : u It  is  at  the  date,  1832,  of  Baron 
Schilling’s  invention  of  his  needle-telegraph  (since  abandoned  as  imprac- 
ticable from  various  and  obvious  causes),  that  I conceived  my  electro- 
magnetic telegraph,  and  first  devised  an  apparatus  applying  magnetism 
produced  by  electricity  or  the  power  of  the  electro-magnet  to  imprint 
characters  at  a distance.”  J And  such  was  ever  his  firm  conviction. 
Some  twenty  years  later,  he  wrote  at  Paris:  “ If  it  be  asked  why  I have 
assumed  the  date  of  the  year  1832  as  a standpoint,  I reply,  because  at 
that  date  the  idea  was  first  conceived,  and  the  process  and  means  first 
developed.”  § 

The  invention  however  as  unfolded  in  his  caveat  of  October  3,  1837 
is  sufficiently  embryonic  for  physiological  study;  and  though  our  patent 
law,  on  grounds  of  sound  policy,  excludes  all  evidence  of  the  inception 
of  a foreign  competitive  invention,  admitting  only  perfected  and  fully 
published  details  successfully  to  interfere  (in  a question  of  priority)  with 
the  first  suggestions  of  the  American  inventor, ||  obviously  no  such  x>atri- 
otic  rule  is  admissible  in  any  scientific  history  of  the  progress  of  actual 
discovery.  Interesting  as  the  earliest  gleams  of  a successful  application 
and  invention  undoubtedly  are,  they  are  too  little  accessible  to  impar- 
tial investigation  to  claim  the  prerogative  of  a recognized  chronology. 


* This  letter  seems  very  positively  to  exclude  the  claim  to  having  “conceived  the 
idea”  of  the  magnetic  telegraph  in  1832. 

t Vail’s  Electro- Hog netic  Telegraph , 1845,  p.  154. 

+ Morse’s  letter  to  Professor  Sears  C.  Walker,  dated  Washington,  January  31,  1848, 
The  writer  is  excusable  for  assuming  1832  as  the  date  qf  Baron  Schilling’s  invention, 
(the  date  ©f  his  return  from  China,)  as  this  is  the  date  usually  assigned  in  the  popular, 
text-books.  Schilling’s  invention  however  so  far  from  being  either  “impracticable” 
or  “abandoned,”  is  the  essential  basis  of  the  telegraph  now  in  use  throughout  Eng- 
land. 

§ Modern  Telegraphy , a pamphlet  by  S.  F.  B.  Morse.  Paris,  1867,  p.  10.  In  a letter  to 
Donald  Mann,  esq.  (editor  of  the  Telegraph  Magazine),  dated  “Poughkeepsie,  De- 
cember, 1852,”  Professor  Morse  stoutly  maintained  his  claim  to  priority  of  practical 
development  (if  not  of  first  conception)  of  an  electric  recording  telegraph ; and  with 
paternal  exaggeration  he  declared,  of  his  first  crude  experiment  at  the  close  of  the  year 
1835,  “The  truth  is,  the  child  was  born,  and  breathed,  and  spoke,  in  1835.  It  had 
then  all  the  essential  characteristics  of  the  future  mau.”  ( American  Telegraph  Maga- 
zine. December  15,  1852,  vol.  i,  No.  3,  p.  130.)  Its  first  transmission  of  an  intelligible 
message  was  made  September  2,  1837. 

||  “ Whenever  it  appears  that  a patentee  at  the  time  of  making  liis  applica- 
tion for  the  patent  believed  himself  to  be  the  original  and  first  inventor  or  dis- 
coverer of  the  thing  patented,  the  same  shall  not  be  held  to  be  void  on  account  of  the 
invention  or  discovery,  or  any  part  thereof,  having  been  known  or  used  in  a foreign 
country  before  his  invention  or  discovery  thereof,  if  it  had  not  been  patented  or 
described  in  a printed  publication.”  {Act  of  July  4,  1836,  section  15,  Revised  Statutes , 
approved  March  2,  1877,  title  lx,  sec.  4923. ) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


5G 

Whether  judged  by  tlie  standard  of  original  conception,  of  practical 
operation,  or  of  actual  introduction  into  use,  the  Morse  telegraph  must 
be  assigned  a position  tolerably  low  down  in  the  list.*  More  than  six- 
teen years  before  Professor  Morse’s  first  conception  of  the  idea,  Dr.  J* 
It.  Coxe,  professor  of  chemistry  in  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  at 
the  beginning  of  1816,  u conceived  the  idea”  of  a practical  electro-chemi- 
cal telegraph,  whose  signals  should  be  permanently  recorded  by  the  de- 
composition of  metallic  salts  ; 1 the  precursor  of  D jar’s  electro-chemical 
telegraph,  successfully  operated  in  1828,  (about  five  years  before  Morse’s 
first  conception,) — of  Bain’s  electro-chemical  telegraph,  (patented  De- 
cember 12,  1846,) — and  of  Morse’s  electro  chemical  telegraph,  (patented 
May  1,  1849,)  a third  of  a century  afterward.  Schilling’s  electro-mag- 
netic telegraph  developed  to  a u practical  operation”  in  1823,  certainly 
before  1825,  preceded  that  of  Morse  more  than  a dozen  years.  And  the 
electro  magnetic  telegraph  of  Gauss  and  Weber  (certainly  u conceived” 
before  1832)  was  in  actual  use  and  employment  more  than  ten  years 
before  the  similar  establishment  by  Professor  Morse;  while  that  of 
Steinheil,  probably  conceived  as  early,  was  some  eight  years  earlier 
than  his  in  its  practical  introduction  into  use.| 

That  Professor  Morse  would  greatly  have  e xpedited  his  own  improve- 
ments, and  have  saved  himself  a large  amount  of  wasted  time  and  labor, 
if  he  had  studied  more  carefully  the  state  of  the  art  at  the  commence- 
ment of  his  experiments  in  1835,  is  sufficiently  obvious.  But  his  com- 
plete unconsciousness — not  only  of  the  earlie  r successes  of  others  in  de- 
veloping the  galvanic  telegraph,  but  of  even  the  elementary  facts  of  sci- 
entific history  bearing  on  the  problem,  as  well  at  the  time  of  his  original 
u conception”  on  board  the  ship  Sully  from  the  fecundating  suggestion 
of  Dr.  Jackson,  as  during  the  years  following,  in  which  the  invention 
was  being  slowljT  matured, — would  be  incredible  on  an y other  testimony 
than  his  own.  In  his  first  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dated 
September  27,  1837,  he  announced  “having  invented  an  entirely  new 
mode  of  telegraphic  communication.”  In  a letter  to  Mr.  A.  Vail,  some 
time  afterward,  he  wrote:  u I ought  perhaps  to  say  that  the  conception 
of  the  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph  was  original  with  me  at  that  time, 
and  I supposed  that  I was  the  first  that  had  ever  associated  the  two 
words  together,  nor  was  it  until  my  invention  was  completed  and  had 
been  successfully  operated  through  ten  miles,  that  I for  the  first  time 

* Nearly  two  years  before  Professor  Morse  had  met  with  Dr.  C.  T.  Jackson,  Henry  had 
“conceived”  and  executed  an  ex})eri  mental  electro-magnetic  telegraph,  of  a mile  circuit. 

t Thomson’s  Annals  of  Philosophy,  February,  1816,  vol.  vii,  p.  163. 

tin  a letter  to  his  daughter  dated  July  *26,  1838,  (written  from  Havre,  just  on  his 
arrival  in  France  from  London,)  Professor  Morse  says  somewhat  curiously  of  the  tele- 
graph of  Wheatstone,  “he  has  invented  his  I believe  without  knowing  that  I was 
engaged  in  au  invention  to  produce  a similar  result ; for  although  he  dates  back  to 
1832,  yet  as  no  publication  of  our  thoughts  was  made  by  either,  we  are  evidently  in- 
dependent of  each  other.”  (Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap,  ix,  p.  3 >8.)  The  popular  in- 
fatuation in  England  as  to  the  originality  and  priority  of  the  Cooke  aud  Wheatstone 
telegraph  is  probably  quite  equal  to  that  prevalent  in  America  as  to  the  superior 
claims  of  the  Morse  telegraph.  Wheatstone’s  scientifio  distinction  or  his  title  to  en- 
during fame,  fortunately  does  not  repose  on  his  telegraph. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH.  57 

learned  that  the  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph  had  been  conceived  by 
another.  ” # 

Some  time  earlier  than  this,  or  five  years  after  their  conversations  on 
ship-board,  Professor  Morse  wrote  to  Dr.  Jackson,  (in  a letter  dated 
August  27,  1837,  seeking  his  indorsement  of  the  writer’s  originality  in 
electrical  telegraphy,)  and  avowed : u I claim  for  myself,  and  consequently 
for  America,  priority  over  all  other  countries  in  the  invention  of  a mode 
of  communicating  intelligence  by  electricity!”  In  a second  letter  to  the 
same  person,  dated  New  York  City  University,  September  18,  1837, 
acknowledging  his  correspondent’s  original  introductory  remarks  on 
electricity  and  electro  magnetism  during  their  homeward  voyage,  but 
differing  from  him  as  to  some  of  the  consequent  circumstances,  he 
affirmed:  “I  then  remarked,  this  being  so,  if  the  presence  of  electricity 
can  be  made  visible  in  any  desired  part  of  the  circuit,  I see  no  reason 
why  intelligence  might  not  be  transmitted  instantaneously  by  elec- 
tricity!” And  in  the  same  letter  he  contended,  “ The  disco v ery  is  the 
original  suggestion  of  conveying  intelligence  by  electricity.f  The  in  ven- 
tion  is  devising  the  mode  of  conveying  it.  The  discovery,  so  far  as  we 
alone  are  concerned,  belongs  to  me:  and  if  by  an  experiment  which  we 
proposed  to  try  together  we  had  mutually  fixed  upon  a successful  mode 
of  conveying  intelligence,  then  we  might  with  some  propriety  be  termed 
mutual  or  joint  iuventors.  But  as  we  have  never  tried  any  experiment 
together,  nor  has  the  one  proposed  to  be  tried  by  you,  been  adopted  by 
me,  I cannot  see  how  we  can  be  called  mutual  inventors.  You  are 
aware  perhaps  that  the  mode  I have  carried  into  effect  after  many  and 
various  experiments  with  the  assistance  of  my  colleague,  Professor  Gale, 
was  never  mentioned  either  by  you  or  to  you.f  ...  I have  always 
said  in  giving  any  account  of  my  telegraph,  that  it  was  on  board  the 
ship  during  a scientific  conversation  with  you  that  I first  conceived  the 
thought  of  an  electric  telegraph.  I have  acknowledgments  of  similar 
kinds  to  make  to  Professor  Silliman  and  Professor  Gale,  . . . and 

to  the  latter  I am  most  of  all  indebted  for  substantial  and  effective 
aid  in  many  of  my  experiments.  If  any  one  has  a claim  to  be  mutual 
inventor  on  the  score  of  aid  by  hints,  it  is  Professor  Gale ; but  he  pre- 
fers no  claim  of  the  kind.”§  In  his  third  letter,  dated  New  York  City 

* Vail’s  Electro- Magnetic  Telegraph , p.  154. 

t Professor  Morse’s  conception  of  1 ‘discovery”  does  not  appear  to  have  been  very  pro- 
found. 

+ [Another  explicit  statement  that  he  did  not  “ conceive  the  idea”  of  the  magnetic 
telegraph  in  1832,  or  on  board  the  ship  Sully.  ] 

§ Dr-  Jackson  in  his  reply,  dated  Boston,  November  7,  1837,  said:  “ This  claim  of 
yours  is  to  me  a matter  of  surprise  and  regret.  . . . You  will  not  I presume 

venture  to  maintain  that  you  at  that  time  knew  anything  about  electro-magnetism 
more  than  what  you  learned  from  me.  ...  I am  certainly  desirous  of  doing  you 
justice  to  the  fullest  extent,  and  have  always  spoken  of  your  merits  as  I hope  I shall 
always  have  occasion  to  do.  . . . Honor  to  whom  honor  is  due  shall  be  my 

motto,  and  I must  I believe  fail  in  this  duty  if  I should  say  that  the  first  idea  of  ail 

electro-magnetic  telegraph  was  conceived  by  an  Americancitizen.  . . . The ‘dis- 
covery’ is  not  then  to  be  claimed  by  us.  I have  invented  a new  instrument;  so  per- 
haps  you  have,  for  I do  not  yet  know  what  your  new  one  is,  since  you  say  I have  not 
seen  it  nor  heard  about  it  beyond  your  announcement.  ” 


58 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


University,  December  7,  1837,  Professor  Morse  reiterated : “Your  mem- 
ory and  mine  are  at  variance  in  regard  to  the  first  suggestion  of  convey- 
ing intelligence  by  electricity.  I claim  to  be  the  one  who  made  it,  and 
in  the  way  which  I stated  in  my  letter  to  you.  . . . The  idea  that 

I had  made  a brilliant  discovery,  that  it  was  original  in  my  mind,  was 
the  exciting  cause  and  the  perpetual  stimulus  to  urge  me  forward  in 
maturing  it  to  a result.  Had  I supposed  at  that  time,  that  the  thought 
had  ever  occurred  to  any  other  person,  I would  never  have  pursued  itj 
and  it  was  not  till  I had  completed  my  present  invention,  that  I was 
aware  that  the  thought  of  conveying  intelligence  by  electricity  had 
occurred  to  scientific  men  some  years  before.  . . . The  single  scien- 

tific fact  ascertained  by  Franklin,  that  electricity  can  be  made  to  travel 
any  distance  instantaneously,  is  all  that  I needed  to  know,  aside  from 
mathematical  and  mechanical  science,  in  order  to  plan  all  I invented  on 
board  the  ship.”* 

These  extracts  sufficiently  show  the  distinguished  inventor’s  profound 
incomprehension,  as  well  of  the  nature  of  the  problem  to  be  solved,  as 
of  the  scientific  principles  involved  in  surmounting  his  fundamental 
difficulties.  That  his  colleague,  Professor  Gale,  should  by  the  mere  ap- 
plication of  existing  knowledge  and  established  fact,  make  his  magnetic 
signals  operative  through  successively  increasing  lengths  of  wire  until 
ten  miles  were  included  in  the  circuit,  appeared— if  remarkable,  at  least 
quite  natural.  That  any  special  credit  should  be  due  to  any  one  but 
himself  and  his  invention,  in  the  accomplishment  of  such  a result,  ap- 
peared no  less  unnatural  and  irrational : and  Dr.  Gale  has  recorded 
u Professor  Morse’s  great  surprise”  when  his  attention  was  first  called  to 
Henry’s  paper  in  Silliman’s  Journal  of  January,  1831,  a year  or  two  after 
his  magnet  and  battery  had  been  so  modified  in  accordance  therewith 
as  to  correlate  them  in  “ intensity.”  That  even  then  the  inventor  under- 
stood the  real  import  of  the  paper  is  rendered  doubtful  by  subsequent 
developments : his  surprise  being  apparently  excited  mainly  by  Henry’s 
suggestion  that  his  researches  were  “ directly  applicable  to  the  project 
of  forming  an  electro-magnetic  telegraph.” 

Prof.  Sears  0.  Walker,  the  eminent  astronomer,  in  a deposition  taken 
in  a telegraph  suit  of  “French  vs:  Kogers,”  has  thus  recorded  his  recol- 
lection of  an  interesting  interview  between  Professors  Henry,  Morse,  and 
Gale,  in  January,  1848,  at  which  he  was  present : “ The  result  of  the  in- 
terview was  conclusive  to  my  mind  that  Professor  Henry  was  the  sole 
discoverer  of  the  law  on  which  the  ^intensity’  magnet  depends  for  its 
power  of  sending  the  galvanic  current  through  a long  circuit.  I was 
also  led  to  conclude  that  Mr.  Morse  in  the  course  of  his  own  researches 
and  experiments,  before  he  read  Professor  Henry’s  article  before  alluded 
to,  had  encountered  the  same  difficulty  Mr.  Barlow  and  those  who  preceded 
him  had  Rencountered ; that  is  the  impossibility  of  forcing  the  galvanic 

* Full  Exposure  of  Dr.  Charles  T.  Jackson’s  Pretensions,  etc.  By  Amos  Kendall.  1st  ed. 
1850  ; 2d  ed.  printed  in  Paris,  1867 : pp.  61-74. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


59 


current  through  a long  telegraph  line.  His  own  personal  researches  had 
not  overcome  this  obstacle.  I also  learned  at  the  same  time,  by  the  con- 
versations above  stated,  that  he  only  overcame  this  obstacle  by  con- 
structing a magnet  on  the  principle  invented  by  Professor  Henry,  and 
described  in  his  article  in  Silliman’s  Journal.  Ilis  attention  was  directed 
to  it  by  Dr.  Gale.”* 

In  consequence  of  this  friendly  interview,  Professor  Morse,  with  a 
frankness  creditable  to  the  natural  impulses  of  his  character,  a short 
time  afterward  addressed  a letter  to  Professor  Walker,  from  which  the 
following  extracts  are  made: 

“Washington,  January  31,  1848. 

“ Dear  Sir  : I have  perused  with  much  interest  that  part  of  your 
manuscript  entitled  4 Theory  of  Morse’s  Electro-Magnetic  Telegraph,’ 
which  you  were  so  kind  as  to  submit  to  my  examination.  The  allusion 
you  make  to  ‘ the  helix  of  a soft-iron  magnet  prepared  after  the  manner 
first  pointed  out  by  Professor  Henry,’  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  which 
I gladly  avail  myself,  to  say  that  I think  justice  has  not  hitherto  been 
done  to  Professor  Henry,  either  in  Europe  or  this  country,  for  the  dis- 
covery of  a scientific  fact  which  in  its  bearing  on  telegraphs,  whether 
of  the  magnetic  needle  or  electro-magnet  order,  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance. . . . Thus  was  opened  the  way  for  fresh  efforts  in  devising 

a practicable  electric  telegraph ; and  Baron  Schilling,  in  1832,  and  Pro- 
fessors Gauss  and  Weber,  in  1833,  had  ample  opportunity  to  learn  of 
Henry’s  discovery,  and  avail  themselves  of  it,  before  they  constructed 
tbeir  needle  telegraphs,  t . . . To  Professor  Henry  is  unquestionably 

due  the  honor  of  the  discovery  of  a fact  in  science  which  proves  the 
practicability  of  exciting  magnetism  through  a long  coil  or  at  a distance, 
either  to  deflect  a needle  or  magnetize  soft  iron.  . . . 

“With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

“Samuel  F.  B.  Morse.” 

This  just  and  honorable  recognition  was  well  calculated  to  reflect  an 
added  luster,  in  the  minds  of  the  intelligent,  upon  Professor  Morse’s 
unquestionable  achievements.  But  the  writer  a few  years  later,  per- 
haps embittered  by  the  sweeping  constructions  placed  by  hostile  ad- 
vocates upon  the  enforced  statements  of  Henry  (exacted  in  strongly- 
contested  litigations  between  rival  telegraph  inventors  or  their  sustain- 
ing companies),  was  unfortunately  Jed  in  evil  hour  by  flattering  partisans 
to  undo  this  gracious  work. 

In  a pamphlet  essay  dated  Locust  Grove,  New  York,  December,  1853, 
and  published  in  January,  1855,  Professor  Morse  hazarded  the  intrepid 

* The  case  of  French,  vs.  Rogers.  Respondent’s  evidence,  p.  199.  Quoted  by  President 
Felton:  Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  94,  95.  The  attention  of  Professor  Morse  was 
in  reality  not  called  to  Henry’s  discovery  by  Dr.  Gale,  till  a considerable  time  after  it 
had  been  successfully  applied  to  the  experimental  circuits  of  the  infant  telegraph. 

t [Schilling’s  telegraphic  experiments  (involving  no  great  length  of  circuit)  were 
earlier  than  Henry’s  discoveries  ; and  the  expedient  of  so  delicate  an  indicator  as  the 
reflecting  galvanometer  employed  by  Gauss  and  Weber  seems  to  show  that  tin  y had 
not  adapted  fully  the  electric  current  to  the  “ intensity”  coil,  as  recommended  by 
Henry.  ] 


60 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


statement:  u First.  I certainly  shall  show  that  I have  not  only  mani- 
fested every  disposition  to  give  due  credit  to  Professor  Henry,  hut 
under  the  hasty  impression  that  he  deserved  credit  for  discoveries  in 
science  bearing  upon  the  telegraph,  I did  actually  give  him  a degree  of 
credit  not  only  beyond  what  he  had  received  at  that  time  from  the  scien- 
tific world,  but  a degree  of  credit  to  which  subsequent  research  has 
proved  him  not  to  be  entitled.  Secondly.  I shall  show  that  I am  not 
indebted  to  him  for  any  discovery  in  science  bearing  on  the  telegraph ; 
and  that  all  discoveries  of  principles  having  this  bearing  were  made,  not 
by  Professor  Henry,  but  by  others,  and  prior  to  any  experiments  of  Pro- 
fessor Henry  in  the  science  of  electro-magnetism.”* 

In  the  inevitable  dilemma  thus  assumed  by  the  pamphleteer,  under 
the  clear  light  of  historic  record,  it  is  most  charitable  not  to  impugn  the 
writer’s  candor.  The  evidences  diligently  gathered  by  him,  of  electric 
impulse  transmitted  to  great  distances,  before  the  date  of  Henry’s  inves- 
tigations, certainly  seem  to  show  a surprising  misconception  of  the  phe- 
nomena and  the  principles  of  electro-magnetism.  That  with  such  mis- 
conception he  should  fail  to  appreciate  an  indebtedness  to  Henry’s  labors, 
is  perhaps  not  surprising ; but  that  he  should  thus  ignore  the  services 
and  statements  of  his  faithful  friend  and  colleague — Professor  Gale,  his 
great  obligations  to  whom  had  been  constantly  admitted,  appears  less 
amenable  to  explanation  or  excuse. 

Professor  Morse  could  say  with  undoubted  truth,  that  not  till  after  the 
successful  working  of  his  invention,  had  he  ever  heard  of  Henry’s  re- 
searches. In  his  letter  to  Professor  Walker,  just  above  quoted,  in  refer- 
ring to  the  time  and  the  nature  of  his  invention,  he  wrote : u I was  utterly 
ignorant  that  the  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph  of  any  kind  whatever, 
had  been  conceived  by  any  other  person.  I took  it  for  granted  that  the 
effects  I desired  could  be  produced  at  a distance  ; and  accordingly  in  the 
-confidence  of  this  persuasion,  I devised  and  constructed  my  apparatus 
for  the  purpose.  I had  never  even  heard  or  read  of  Professor  Henry’s 
experiments,  nor  did  I become  acquainted  with  them  until  after  all  my 
apparatus  was  constructed  and  in  operation  through  half  a mile  of  wire? 
at  the  Yew  York  City  University,  in  1837.  I then  learned  for  the  first 
time  that  an  electric  telegraph  of  some  kind  had  been  thought  of  before 
I had  thought  of  it.”  In  his  pamphlet  of  January,  1855,  he  mentions  that 
at  the  date  of  Henry’s  publication  in  Silliman’s  Journal,  he  was  sojourn- 
ing in  Italy.  u From  the  autumn  of  tbe  year  1829  till  the  autumn  of  the 
year  1832  I was  in  Europe,  principally  in  Italy.  . . . The  fact  is,  it 

did  not  come  to  my  knowledge  until  five  years  after  my* return,  in  1837.”! 

* A Defence  against  the  injurious  deductions  drawn  from  the  deposition  of  Prof.  Joseph 
Henry  [in  the  sever, il  telegraph,  suits];  by  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  January  1855,  p.  8. 
(See  “Supplement,”  Note  H.) 

t Morse’s  Defence  against  the  injurious  deductions,  etc.  (p.  15,  and  foot-note).  Thus 
while  Morse— dreaming  only  of  artistic  fame,  was  assiduously  cultivating  liis  art  in 
Italy,  nearly  two  years  before  he  met  with  Dr.  Jackson  on  the  homeward  ship,  or  be- 
fore the  conception  of  electric  signaling  had  dawned  upon  his  mind,  Henry  had  an 
electro-magnetic  circuit  of  a mile,  with  bell  signal,  in  actual  operation  at  the  Albany 
Academy. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


61 


Professor  Gale,  when  asked  in  1856,  if  lie  would  give  a statement  for 
publication,  of  the  Morse  apparatus  as  originally  constructed,  and  be- 
fore being  modified  by  himself,  promptly  responded  in  a letter  dated 
Washington,  April  7,  1856 : u This  apparatus  was  Morse’s  original  in- 
strument, usually  known  as  the  type  apparatus,  in  which  the  types,  set 
up  in  a composing-stick,  were  run  through  a circuit-breaker,  and  in 
which  the  battery  was  the  cylinder  battery,  with  a single  pair  of  plates. 
The  sparseness  of  the  wires  in  the  magnet  coils,  and  the  use  of  the  single 
cup  battery,  were  to  me  on  the  first  look  at  the  instrument,  obvious 
marks  of  defect,  and  I accordingly  suggested  to  the  professor,  without 
giving  my  reasons  for  so  doing,  that  a battery  of  many  pairs  should  be 
substituted  for  that  of  a single  pair,  and  that  the  coil  on  each  arm  of  the 
magnet  should  be  increased  to  many  hundred  turns  eacli : which  experi- 
ment (if  I remember  aright)  was  made  on  the  same  day,  with  a battery 
and  wire  on  hand,  furnished  I believe  by  myself:  and  it  was  found  that 
while  the  original  arrangement  would  only  send  the  electric  current 
through  a few  feet  of  wire,  (say  from  fifteen  to  forty,)  the  modified  ar- 
rangement would  send  it  through  as  many  hundred.  Although  I gave 
no  reasons  at  the  time  to  Professor  Morse  for  the  suggestions  I had  pro- 
posed in  modifying  the  arrangement  of  the  machine,  I did  so  afterward; 
and  referred  in  my  explanations  to  the  paper  of  Professor  Henry,  in  the 
nineteenth  volume  of  the  American  Journal  of  Science.  . . . At  the 

time  I gave  the  suggestions  above  named,  Professor  Morse  was  not  famil- 
iar with  the  then  existing  state  of  the  science  of  electro -magnetism.  Had 
he  been  so,  or  had  he  read  and  appreciated  the  paper  of  Henry,  the  sug- 
gestions made  by  me  would  naturally  have  occurred  to  his  mind,  as 
they  did  to  my  own.  . . . Professor  Morse  expressed  great  surprise 

at  the  contents  of  the  paper  when  I showed  it  to  him,  but  especially 
at  the  remarks  on  Dr.  Barlow’s  results  respecting  telegraphing.”* 

In  a letter  published  in  the  Sunday  Chronicle  at  Washington,  in  1872^ 
Professor  Gale  (strongly  vindicating  the  propriety  of  erecting  a monu- 
ment to  Professor  Morse — not  as  a Discoverer  but  as  an  Inventor,)  con- 
ceded that  “ Morse  knew  nothing  of  Henry’s  discovery  when  he  invented 
his  machine.  Henry’s  discovery  was  published  in  1831.  Five  or  six  years 
later  Morse  invented  his  telegraphic  machine,  without  having  seen  an 
account  of  Henry’s  experiments  till  shown  to  him  by  myself.”  f And  from 
this  consideration  he  justly  exonerates  him  from  the  imputation  of 
plagiarism  which  had  been  inconsiderately  brought  against  the  distin- 
guished inventor.  In  a letter  addressed  to  Prof.  E.  H.  Horsford,  of 
Cambridge,  Mass.,  dated  Washington,  May  18,  1872,  the  same  writer 
said:  “I  adapted  to  Morse’s  machine  the  modification  which  was  taken 
from  Henry’s  experiments  of  1831.  [Properly  of  1829,  and  1830.]  But 
Morse,  not  having  been  accustomed  to  investigate  scientific  facts,  could 
not  appreciate  the  investigations  of  Henry  as  applicable  to  the  tele- 


* Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  92,  93. 
t Sunday  Chronicle,  Washington,  March  3,  1872. 


62 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


graph  ; and  I presume  that  Morse  never  did  fully  appreciate  the  benefit 
which  his  machine  derived  from  Henry’s  discovery.”* 

Professor  Morse’s  real  merit  (and  his  real  contribution  to  telegraphy) 
consists,  first,  in  the  adaptation  of  the  armature  of  a Henry  electro-mag- 
net to  the  purpose  of  a recording  instrument,  and  secondly,  in  connec- 
tion therewith,  the  improvement  on  the  Gauss  and  Steinheil  dual-sign 
alphabets,  (made  either  by  himself,  or  his  assistant,  Mr.  Vail,)  of  employ- 
ing, instead  of  alternating  or  vibratory  markings,  the  simple  “ dot-and- 
dash”  alphabet  in  a single  line.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  indebt- 
edness of  Professor  Morse  to  Dr.  Jackson  for  the  suggestion  of  the  first 
idea  of  an  “ electric”  telegraph,  it  is  quite  clear  from  the  incoherent 
claims  of  Dr.  Jackson  himself,  that  these  two  really  important  improve- 
ments were  original  with  Morse,  and  were  in  no  sense  derived  from  , 
Jackson,  f 

Claims  so  moderate,  though  so  meritorious,  (as  might  be  supposed)  j 
would  scarcely  satisfy  the  ambition  of  the  patentee  and  his  supporters, 
conscious  of  the  equally  meritorious  exertion  and  enterprise  by  which 
through  tedious  ordeals  of  obstruction  and  difficulty  a great  practical 
success  had  been  achieved,  and  before  whom — in  just  reward  prophetic  . 
visions  of  a grand  commercial  monopoly  loomed  in  large  perspective,  j 
And  thus  by  ignoring  and  undervaluing  the  results  accomplished  by  j 
those  earlier  in  the  field,  the  owners  of  the  patent  exerted  themselves  to 
repress  competing  systems,  and  to  arrogate  entire  invention  and  propri- 
etorship of  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph. 

To  the  vast  majority— suddenly  dazzled  by  so  magnificent  a culmina-  j 
tion  of  invention,  such  claims  appeared  entirely  legitimate ; to  the  studi- 
ous few — prepared  to  discriminate;  they  appeared  as  entirely  inad  missible.  j 
The  judicial  tribunals— disposed  to  sustain  a vested  right  with  largest  and 
most  liberal  interpretation,  yet  pronounced  in  final  appeal  such  claims  i] 
"Untenable  and  overstated.  | 

To  so  eminent  a pioneer  in  telegraphy  as  Henry,  perhaps  more  thanj 
to  any  other,  must  the  overweening  pretensions  of  the  “ Morse  Tele-  j 
graph”  have  been  obvious  and  untenable;  and  yet  with  that  impar- 
tiality of  judgment — that  rare  independency  of  personal  bias  which  soi 
marvelously  distinguished  him,  he  never  permitted  himself  to  under- 
estimate Morse’s  true  merits,  nor  did  he  abstain  from  defending  them 
with  a heartiness  probably  greater  than  was  accorded  by  any  of  his  sci- 
entific compeers.  For  Professor  Morse  personally  he  felt  a sympathetic. 


duced.  § 


* Memorial  of  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse.  (Meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall.)  Boston,  1872,  p.  37. 
f These  two  features  so  impressed  the  candid  Steinheil,  the  foremost  of  telegraplieis, 
as  to  lead  him  at  once  to  accept  them  as  great  improvements  on  his  own  ingenious 
method  of  recording,  and  to  urge  at  once  their  substitution. 


X See  “ Supplement,”  Note  I. 


§ See  “ Supplement,”  Note  J. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


63 


u Relay”  and  “ receiving”  circuits. — The  somewhat  controverted  ques- 
tion as  to  the  true  origin  of  the  relay  system  of  electrical  communica- 
tion has  been  purposely  reserved  for  a concluding  discussion.  Though 
unquestionably  a valuable  adjunct  in  distant  intercourse,  the  “ relay  ” 
is  not  here  treated  as  an  essential  feature  of  the  electric  telegraph,  since 
land-lines  of  600  miles,  and  by  the  ocean  system  cables  of  2,000  miles, 
are  easily  made  operative  in  a single  stretch  or  circuit. 

Henry’s  original  contrivance  of  a special  compound  circuit  in  1835, 
(already  noticed,)  by  nouneans  precluded  an  equally  original  invention 
by  Professor  Morse  some  years  later  of  a different  arrangement  of  con- 
joined circuits.  Nor  is  it  at  all  surprising  that  a combination  (in  itself 
sufficiently  obvious)  should  spontaneously  occur  to  several  minds  if  so 
circumstanced  as  to  feel  a need  for  it.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that 
Morse,  like  Wheatstone,  independently  invented  his  application  of  the 
general  idea,  and  probably  about  the  same  time,  in  the  spring  of  1837.* 

To  do  justice  however  to  each  party,  it  is  all-important  to  discrimi- 
nate carefully  between  the  actual  results  attained  by  each.  Henry  had 
simply  the  philosophic  plan  of  employing  a weak  magnetic  power  to  act 
as  a distant  trigger  for  a great  magnetic  power,  (one  therefore  of  short 
circuit,) — and  there  stop.t  Wheatstone,  employing  a delicate  arrange- 
ment of  silent  galvanometer  needle  at  the  distant  station,  felt  the  neces- 
sity of  promptly  calling  attention  to  the  visual  signal  by  an  audible 
alarm;  hence  this  feeble  power  was  used  also  as  the  trigger  to  bring 
into  action  a much  shorter  and  more  powerful  electro-magnetic  circuit, 
— but  merely  as  a call , and  there  stop.  Morse,  requiring  a stronger  sig- 
naling duty  (in  the  use  of  a recording  lever)  than  the  length  of  the 
circuit  would  probably  permit,  conceived  the  idea  of  a division  of  the 
circuit  into  several  shorter  ones ; each  successive  circuit  to  be  of  the  same 
hind  as  the  preceding.  He  thus  first  produced  a true  “relay,’’  and  this 
too  without  a knowledge  of  anything  similar  having  been  previously 
exhibited  by  Professor  Henry  as  a lecture-room  experiment  before  his 
college  classes.  It  may  therefore  be  affirmed  that  Henry,  feeling  no 
occasion  for  extending  a telegraphic  line,  had  probably  no  idea  of  a 
“relay,”  properly  so  called,  when  he  first  devised  his  combination  of  an 
“intensity”  circuit  with  a “quantity”  circuit;  that  Professor  Morse,  by 
his  own  declaration,  had  certainly  no  conception  of  a local  receiving 
“ quantity  ” magnet  when  subsequently  he  first  devised  his  combination 
of  a series  of  equal  “intensity”  circuits;  and  that  Wheatstone  had  as 
little  idea  of  either  a “receiving”  or  a “relay”  magnet  when  (in  con- 

* It  even  appears  (from  the  unfortunate  controversy  between  Messrs.  Cooke  and 
Wheatstone  as  to  the  priority  and  value  of  their  respective  contributions)  that  the  two 
English  copartners  each  independently  invented  the  “relay”  alarum.  ( Professor 
Wheatstone's  Answer  to  Mr.  Cooke’s  pamphlet.  Republished  in  Cooke’s  “ Electric  Tele- 
graph,”  etc.  part  i,  p.  55,  foot-note.) 

t “My  object  in  the  process  described  by  me  was  to  bring  into  operation  a large 
‘quantity’  magnet  connected  with  a ‘quantity’  battery  in  a local  circuit,  by  means  of 
a small  ‘intensity’  magnet,  and  an  ‘intensity’  battery  at  a distance.”  ( Smithsonian 
Report  for  1857,  p.  112.) 


64 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


junction  with  Cooke)  he  devised  a “quantity”  circuit  supplementary  to 
his  “intensity”  circuit  for  the  sole  purpose  of  calling  “attention.” 

Professor  Morse  in  his  answer  to  the  twelfth  cross-interrogatory  (in  his 
deposition  taken  February  6,  7,  and  8,  1851),  in  the  case  of  “ B.  B.  French 
and  others  vs.  H.  J.  Bogers  and  others,”  has  made  the  following  state- 
ment : “If  by  the  question  is  sought  the  date  of  my  invention  of  break- 
ing and  closing  one  circuit  by  another,  I answer  in  1830  [ ? ].  I exhibited 
the  same  in  operation  [?]  in  the  spring  of  1837.  If  by  the  question  is 
sought  the  date  of  my  invention  of  a short  circuit  to  be  used  at  the  ex- 
tremities of  the  line,  I answer  in  May  of  1844.  If  by  the  question  is 
sought  the  date  of  a still  greater  improvement,  to  wit,  that  of  placing 
short  circuits  on  the  margin  (so  to  speak)  of  the  main  line,  all  of  them  to 
be  operated  simultaneously,  I answer  that  the  idea  of  such  an  improve- 
ment first  presented  itself  to  my  mind  in  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1844.*  . . . The  short  circuits  at  the  extremity  of  the  main  line  were 

first  used  on  the  line  between  Washington  and  Baltimore,  in  May,  1844.”  t 

These  deliberate  statements  of  Professor  Morse  distinguish  very  explic- 
itly between  the  “relay”  of  magnets  for  “breaking  and  closing  one  cir- 
cuit by  another,”  and  the  “receiving”  magnet  of  “a  short  circuit  at  the 
extremities  of  the  line.”  And  as  a fact  of  public  record,  Morse  patented 
the  first  of  these  devices  June  20, 1840;  (No.  1647 ;')  while  he  did  not  pat- 
ent the  latter  device  (the  “ receiving  ” magnet  of  a local  circuit)  till  about 
six  years  later,  April  11,  1846  : (No.  4453.) 

On  the  same  subject,  Professor  Gale  has  stated  in  his  deposition : 
“ The  said  Morse  always  expressed  his  confidence  of  success  in  propa- 
gating magnetic  power  through  any  distance  of  electric  conductors  which 
circumstances  might  render  desirable.  His  plan  was  thus  often  ex- 
plained to  me.  Suppose  (said  Professor  Morse)  that  in  experimenting 
on  twenty  miles  of  wire  we  should  find  that  the  power  of  magnetism  is 
so  feeble  that  it  will  but  move  a lever  with  certainty  but  a hair’s  breadth; 
that  would  be  insufficient  it  may  be  to  write  or  print,  yet  it  would  be 
sufficient  to  close  and  break  another  or  a second  circuit  twenty  miles 
farther ; and  this  second  circuit  could  in  the  same  manner  be  made  to 
break  and  close  a third  circuit  twenty  miles  farther ; and  so  on  around 
the  globe.” 

This  is  a very  clear  presentation  of  the  “ relay  ” of  circuits.  But  with 
a slight  confusion  of  idea  Dr.  Gale  proceeds  : “This  general  statement 
of  the  means  to  be  resorted  to,  now  embraced  in  what  is  called  the  1 re- 
ceiving magnet J to  render  practical — writing  or  printing  by  telegraph 
through  long  distances,  was  shoAvn  to  me  more  in  detail  early  in  the 
spring  of  the  year  1837.”  To  the  same  effect,  nearly  a quarter  of  a 

* [Steinheil,  in  1837  (seven  years  earlier),  had  adapted  his  registering  galvanometer 
“to  repeat  and  render  permanent  at  all  parts  of  the  chain  where  an  apparatus  like  that 
above  described  is  inserted,”  the  information  transmitted  to  the  terminus.  (Sturgeon’s 
Annals  of  Electricity , etc.  April,  1839,  vol.  iii,  p.  520.)] 

t Deposition  of  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse , Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  eastern 
district  of  Pennsylvania,  April  session,  1850,  No.  104,  “ Complainant’s  Evidence,”  pp. 
182,  183. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


65 


century  later,  Dr.  Gale  states  that  “ Before  lines  of  telegraph  were  set 
up,  it  was  anticipated  that  in  long  lines  the  ordinary  current  of 
electricity  might  not  be  strong  enough  to  work  the  magnet  at  such  dis- 
tance, so  as  to  write,  but  would  be  so  strong  as  to  open  and  close  a side 
or  local  circuit,  as  suggested  by  Professor  Henry.  This  mode  of  using 
one  electric  circuit  and  magnet  to  open  and  close  another  electric  circuit 
(either  for  extending  the  main  circuit  to  greater  distances  or  to  operate 
any  local  circuit),  although  not  in  the  machine  when  I first  saw  it,  was 
discussed  in  an  early  part  of  1837,  before  any  lines  had  been  constructed.”* 

In  both  these  accounts,  Professor  Gale  has  inadvertently  (though  not 
unnaturally)  confounded  together  two  entirely  distinct  inventions,  in- 
volving different  arrangements  and  purposes; — the  “relay ” circuit  and 
magnet  (of  the  “ intensity”  order),  and  the  “ receiving  ” circuit  and  mag- 
net (of  the  “quantity”  order)  ;•  although  Professor  Morse  himself  dis- 
tinctly declared  he  had  no  conception  of  the  latter  arrangement  in  1837, 
having  invented  it  “ in  May  of  1841.” 

While  the  first  invention  of  the  special  application  called  the  “relay” 
is  thus  unhesitatingly  ascribed  to  Professor  Morse,  the  practically  much 
more  important  arrangement  of  the  terminal  or  local  short  circuit  “ quan- 
tity ” magnet  for  reinforcing  the  power  of  the  “ intensity  ” magnet,  must 
as  unhesitatingly  be  claimed  for  Henry ; and  as  an  invention  several 
years  prior  to  that  of  Morse,  it  would  by . the  well-known  principles  of 
patent-law,  have  generically  subordinated  the  special  application  of  the 
latter.  Although  Henry  did  not  technically  “perfect  the  invention,”  it 
remains  none  the  less  true  that  every  “receiving  magnet  ” in  use  through- 
out our  own  and  other  countries  is  but  the  obvious  application  of  Hen- 
ry’s experimental  junction  of  the  two  circuits,  exhibited  eleven  years 
before  it  entered  into  Professor  Morse’s  patent  of  April  11,  1846. 

As  indicative  of  the  relative  importance  of  these  two  inventions, — the 
Henry  “receiving”  magnet  and  the  Morse  “ relay”  of  circuits,  it  may 
be  stated  that  on  the  extended  lines  of  the  “ Western  Union  Telegraph 
Company,”  there  are  now  13,745  of  the  former  in  actual  operation,  and 
only  228  of  the  latter;  being  60  of  the  Henry  “ receivers”  for  each  of 
the  Morse  “ repeaters.”  And  in  remarkable  confirmation  of  Henry’s 
early  anticipations  of  the  capacity  of  his  “intensity”  magnet  to  be 
operated  under  judicious  conditions  directly  through  a distance  of  sev- 
eral hundred  miles,  it  is  the  “ accomplished  fact”  to-day  that  numerous 
single  circuits  ranging  from  500  to  600  miles  in  length,  are  in  actual  use 
in  the  United  States,  operated  by  his  magnet.  The  telegraph-line  from 
New  York  to  New  Orleans,  (upward  of  1,500  miles,)  is  worked  in  three 
links  or  circuits  (connected  by  two  relays  or  repeaters) ; the  last  circuit, 
from  Chattanooga,  Tenn.  to  New  Orleans,  La.  being  638  miles  long,  f 

* Memorial  of  S.  F.  B.  Morse,  Washington,  1875,  p.  19.  On  the  question  of  the  date 
of  Professor  Morse’s  ‘‘Relay”,  see  ’“Supplement,”  Note  K. 

t These  interesting  facts  are  communicated  by  the  accomplished  telegraphic  expert, 
Mr  Frank  L.  Pope  (of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company),  a vice-president  of  the 
American  Electrical  Society:  author  of  “Modern  Practice  of  the  Electric  Telegraph:” 
&c. 


5 E T 


66 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Among  examples  of  u magnetic  77  telegraphs  which  might  properly  here 
receive  a passing  notice,  are  the  four  following  : 

1837.  The  so-called  u mechanical 77  or  clironometric  telegraph  of  Mr. 
William  F.  Cooke,  of  London,  comprising  two  synchronously  revolving 
cylinders  (or  escapements)  at  the  two  stations,  arrested  simultaneously 
by  a magnetic  armature  detent,  somewhat  after  the  general  principle  of 
Ronalds7s  synchronous  dials  of  1816,  previously  mentioned.  This  form 
of  dial  telegraph  was  worked  by  Mr.  Cooke  in  April,  1837.* 

1837.  The  first  letter-printing  telegraifii,  devised  by  Mr.  Alfred  Vail, 
of  New  Jersey,  in  September,  1837,  comprising  a printing-wheel  pro- 
vided with  spring  type  for  the  letters  of  the  alphabet,  projecting  radi- 
ally from  its  periphery,  and  corresponding  with  the  teeth  of  an  escape- 
ment wheel  on  the  same  shaft  or  axis,  driven  by  ordinary  clock-work,  and 
regulated  by  a pendulum.  The  pendulum  oscillating  as  a free  armature 
between  two  electro-magnets,  was  arrested  by  one  of  the  magnets  when 
the  desired  letter  was  reached,  and  another  electro-magnet,  with  lever 
armature,  simultaneously  drew  down  the  spring  type  of  the  letter- wheel 
upon  the  fillet  of  paper  beneath  it.t  This  ingenious  arrangement  like 
the  dial  telegraph  of  Ronalds,  and  that  of  Cooke  (independently  con- 
trived but  a short  time  previously),  required  a synchronous  movement 
of  the  clocks  and  their  pendulums  at  the  two  stations.  Eighteen  years 
later,  a printing  telegraph  on  the  same  principle  was  very  successfully 
worked  out  and  operated  by  Mr.  David  E.  Hughes,  of  Kentucky. 

1838.  The  electro-magnetic  chemical  telegraph  of  Mr.  Edward  Davy, 
of  London,  comprising  a chemically  marking  or  recording  cylinder,  op- 
erated by  a clock-work  escapement  and  the  armature  of  an  electro-mag. 
net.  Relays  of  circuits  were  also  included,  operated  by  a galvanometer 
needle.| 

1839.  The  dial  telegraph  of  Prof.  Charles  Wheatstone,  of  London, 

completed  by  him  in  November,  1839,  comprising  an  escapement  and 
index  operated  by  the  step-motion  of  an  electro-magnetic  armature.  In 
this  arrangement,  the  synchronous  motions  and  indicating  positions 
on  the  terminal  dials  were  effected  entirely  by  the  specific  number  of 
galvanic  impulses  given  to  the  transmitting  and  receiving  escapements. § 
The  principle  of  this  transmission  was  in  1846,  skillfully  and  success- 
fully applied  by  Mr.  Royal  E.  House,  of  Vermont,  to  a u printing  tele- 
graph^7  

* “ Mr.  Cooke’s  Case,”  before  the  arbitrators.  The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.  by  W.  F- 
Cooke,  part  ii,  p.  23.  It  appears  that  this  arrangement  was  devised  by  Mr.  Cooke  in 
1836. 

t The  American  Electro-magnetic  Telegraph,  by  Alfred  Vail,  1845,  pp.  159-171. 

JTlie  English  patent  of  Edward  Davy,  July  4,  1838,  No.  7719, 

§ “Professor  Wheatstone’s  Case,”  before  the  arbitrators,  in  1840,  p.  101. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


67 


GENERAL  SUMMARY. 

From  the  foregoing*  partial  history  of  the  origin  and  development  of 
the  electro  magnetic  telegraph,  it  is  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  its 
successful  introduction  has  been  effected  by  a considerable  number  of 
independent  contributions.  The  leading  preparatory  investigations  and 
discoveries  which  opened  the  way  for  the  telegraph,  (though  with  no 
such  utilitarian  end  in  view,)  may  be  held  to  be 

1st:  The  discovery  of  galvanic  electricity  by  Galvani  (1786-1790 ). 

2d:  The  galvanic  or  voltaic  battery  by  Yolta  (1800). 

3d:  The  directive  influence  of  the  galvanic  current  on  a magnetic 
needle  by  Eomagnosi  (1802),  and  by  Oersted  (1820). 

4th:  The  galvanometer  by  Schweigger  (1820),  the  parent  of  the  needle 
system. 

5th:  The  electro-magnet  by  Arago  and  Sturgeon  (1820-1825),  the  par- 
ent of  the  magnet  system. 

Passing  these,  the  next  most  important  series  of  steps  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  our  present  system  of  telegraphy,  and  having  a more  or  less  con- 
scious reference  thereto,  are : 

First,  and  most  vital:  Henry’s  discovery  in  1829,  and  1830,  of  the  66  in. 
tensity”  or  spool- wound  magnet,  and  its  intimate  relation  to  the  u inten- 
sity ” battery ; whereby  its  excitation  could  be  effected  to  a great  distance 
through  a very  long  conducting- wire.* 

Second : Gauss’s  improvement  in  1833,  (or  probably  Schilling’s  improve- 
ment considerably  earlier,)  of  reducing  the  electric  conductors  to  a single 
circuit,  by  the  ingenious  application  of  a dual  sign  so  combined  as  to 
produce  a true  alphabet.! 

Third:  Weber’s  discovery  in  1833,  that  the  conducting  wires  of  an 
electric  telegraph  could  be  efficiently  carried  through  the  air,  without 
any  insulation  except  at  their  points  of  support. 

Fourth:  As  a valuable  adjunct  to  telegraphy,  Daniell’s  invention  of  a 

constant”  galvanic  battery  in  1836. 

Fifth  : Steinheil’s  remarkable  discovery  in  1837,  that  the  earth  may 
form  the  returning  half  of  a closed  galvanic  circuit,  so  that  a single  con- 
ducting-wire is  sufficient  for  all  telegraphic  purposes. 

Sixth : Morse’s  adaptation  of  the  armature  of  a Henry  electro  magnet 
as  a recording  instrument  in  1837, $ gind  in  connection  therewith  the  irn- 

*Subordinated  to  tliis  important  step,  the  use  of  the  armature  as  the  signaling  de- 
vice and  the  first  adoption  of  an  acoustic  signal  might  be  mentioned.  If  Morse’s 
“relay”  be  judged  by  any  as  of  sufficient  importance  to  rank  with  the  more  essential 
elements,  then  Henry’s  earlier  and  still  more  important  device  of  the  terminal  short 
circuit  magnet  of  “ quantity”  must  not  be  overlooked. 

tThe  probable  anticipations  of  this, — by  Lomond  in  1787,  by  Cavallo  in  1795,  and  by 
Dyar  in  1825, — are  here  neglected,  as  neither  sufficiently  definite,  nor  as  perhaps  prac- 
tically influential  on  the  progress  of  telegraphy ; though  this  recurrence  of  idea  should 
certainly  not  be  lost  sight  of  in  any  history  of  the  origins  of  inventions. 

t September  of  1837  is  fixed  upon  as  the  earliest  date  on  which  an  actual  register  of 
intelligible  signs  was  made  by  Professor  Morse.  (New  York  Journal  of  Commerce , Sep- 
tember 7,  1837.)  These  signs  were  not  alphabetical , but  were  zig-zag  markings  repre- 
senting numerals. 


68 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


provement  in  1838,  on  tlie  Schilling,  Gauss,  and  Steinheil  alphabets,  of 
employing  instead  of  alternating  signs  (as  in  his  first  register),  the  simple 
“ dot-and-dash”  alphabet  in  a single  line.* 

As  displaying  the  u movement  of  an  age,”  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  these  six  capital  steps  were  all  effected  within  the  fruitful  period  ot 
a single  decade.  If  we  except  the  first  of  these — the  inaugurating  ad- 
vance, without  which  no  electro-magnetic  telegraph  would  have  been 
practicable,!  it  will  probably  be  difficult  for  the  impartial  historian  to 
award  to  the  succeeding  five  contributions  their  respective  value  and 
just  desert. 

The  earlier  needle  type  of  the  electro -magnetic  telegraph,  as  developed 
by  Schilling  and  by  Gauss,  has  found  its  special  and  appropriate  appli- 
cation in  extended  ocean-lines  ; and  indeed  without  such  development, 
it  is  doubtful  whether  we  could  have  had  a transatlantic  telegraph. 
It  is  well  for  the  exclusive  partisans  of  the  “American  system”  to 
reflect  that  in  the  operation  of  these  submarine  cables  there  enters  no 
element  of  Morse’s  instrument.  The  receiving  and  indicating  mechanism 
devised  by  Gauss  and  Weber,  and  introduced  some  ten  years  earlier,  is 
essentially  that  in  use  to-day  on  either  shore  of  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 
The  signals  of  the  earlier  invention  are  equal  right  and  left  deflections 
of  an  exceedingly  delicate  reflecting  galvanometer ; the  signals  of  the 
later  invention  are  the  unequal  contacts  of  an  electro-magnetic  arm- 
ature. 

Many  other  telegraphic  developments — not  within  the  object  of  this 
summary,  such  as  the  Various  modifications  of  the  galvanometer  system, 
the  ingenious  arrangements  of  dial  indicators,  and  above  all — as  most 
ingenious  of  all — the  printing  telegraphs,  (originating  as  we  have  seen, 
with  Alfred  Vail,)  present  what  may  be  called  highly  organized 
varieties  of  the  art;  but  varieties  which  notwithstanding  the  rare 
order  of  inventive  intelligence  expended  upon  them,  and  the  great 
value  jmssbssed  by  them  in  special  applications,  do  not  promise  to 
exercise  a corresponding  influence  upon  the  future  of  telegraphy.  The 
wonders  of  multiplex  telegraphy  (the  simultaneous  transmission  of  two 
or  even  four  or  more  communications  in  either  direction  over  the  same 
wife),  and  of  vocal  telegraphy  (the  transmutation  and  transmission  of 
human  speech  by  electric  waves  in  the  telephone),  lie  still  more  beyond 
the  scope  of  this  review. 

In  conclusion,  an  early  averment  in  this  historic  sketch,  as  to  “ the 
growth  of  the  electric  telegraph,”  may  be  repeated  in  the  language  of  a 
later  writer.  u The  history  of  the  subject  thus  far  shows  us  that  no 
single  individual  can  justly  claim  the  distinction  of  having  been  the 

* Professor  Morse’s  first  use  of  tlie  alphabet  was  made  in  January,  1838.  (New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce,  January  29,  1838;  also  Prime’s  Life  of  Morse , 8vo,  New  York, 
1875,  p.  331.)  On  the  subject  of  “Alphabetic  notation”  see  “ Supplement,”  Note  L. 

tWheatstone  himself  does  not  appear  to  have  fully  realized  the  significance  and  value 
of  Henry’s  researches  till  1837.  The  simple  electro-chemical  telegraph  might  have 
been  successfully  developed  without  the  discovery  of  the  “intensity”  magnet,  and 
may  yet  prove  in  practice  a formidable  competitor  with  it. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


G 9 


inventor  of  the  electric  telegraph.  It  was  in  fact  a growth , rather  than 
an  invention , the  work  of  many  brains,  and  of  many  hands.”  (Pres- 
cott’s Electricity  and  the  Electric  Telegraph,  1877,  chap,  xxix,  p.  420.) 

But  amid  the  galaxy  of  brilliant  names  who  prepared  the  success  and 
organized  the  triumph  for  the  execution  of  skillful  artisans,  none 
stands  higher,  or  shines  with  more  resplendent  luster,  than  that  of 

JOSEPH  HENRY. 


SUPPLEMENT. 


NOTE  A.  (From  p.  6.) 

THE  WORTH  OF  ABSTRACT  RESEARCH. 

Tl^e  eminent  natural  philosopher  Dr.  Thomas  Young,  has  well  remarked:  “No  dis- 
covery however  remote  in  its  nature  from  the  subjects  of  daily  observation,  can  with 
reason  he  declared  wholly  inapplicable  to  the  benefit  of  mankind.  . . . Those 

who  possess  the  genuine  spirit  of  scientific  investigation  and  who  have  tasted  the  pure 
satisfaction  arising  from  an  advancement  in  intellectual  acquirements,  are  contented 
to  proceed  in  their  researches  without  inquiring  at  every  step  what  they  gain  by  their 
newly  discovered  lights,  and  to  what  practical  purposes  they  are  applicable.  They 
receive  a sufficient  gratification  from  the  enlargement  of  their  views  of  the  constitution 
of  the  universe,  and  experience  in  the  immediate  pursuit  of  knowledge  that  pleasure 
which  others  wish  to  obtain  more  circuitously  by  its  means.”* 

In  a similar  spirit,  Oersted  expressed  his  clear  perception  in  an  anniversary  address 
delivered  in  1814,  before  the  University  of  Copenhagen,  that  “The  real  laborer  in 
science  chooses  knowledge  as  his  highest  aim.  A love  of  knowledge,  (which  some  are 
frequently  obliged  to  place  secondary  to  other  duties,)  with  the  man  of  science  must 
be  the  occupation  of  his  life ; he  is  dedicated  to  nourish  the  holy  flame  of  wisdom 
which  shall  diffuse  its  rays  amidst  the  rest  of  mankind ; it  is  his  nightly  lamp  which 
shall  enlighten  .the  earth.”  t 

And  with  no  less  earnestness  and  force,  our  own  Henry  declared  : “ While  we  rejoice 
that  in  our  country  above  all  others  so  much  attention  is  paid  to  the  diffusion  of 
knowledge,  truth  compels  us  to  say  that  comparatively  little  encouragement  is  given 
to  its  increase.  ...  As  soon  as  any  branch  of  science  can  be  brought  to  bear  on 
the  necessities,  conveniences,  or  luxuries  of  life,  it  meets  with  encouragement  and 
reward.  Not  so  with  the  discovery  of  the  incipient  principles  of  science : the  investi- 
gations which  lead  to  these  receive  no  fostering  care  from  the  government,  and  are 
considered  by  the  superficial  observer  as  trifles  unworthy  the  attention  of  those  who 
place  the  supreme  good  in  that  which  immediately  administers  to  the  physical  needs 
or  luxuries  of  life.  But  he  who  loves  truth  for  its  own  sake,  feels  that  its  highest 
claims  are  lowered  and  its  moral  influence  marred  by  being  continually  summoned 
to  the  bar  of  immediate  and  palpable  utility.”  $ 

In  a jdea  for  the  endowment  of  abstract  science,  William  Swainson,  the  naturalist, 
justly  observes:  “If  the  depths  of  science  are  to  be  fathomed,  and  new  discoveries 
brought  to  light,  the  task  can  only  be  achieved  by  those  whose  time  is  at  their  own 
command,  whose  attention  is  not  divided  or  distracted  by  avocations  purely  worldly, 
and  whose  circumstances  are  such  as  to  make  them  free  from  pecuniary  cares.  Tal- 
ents fitting  their  possessors  for  such  speculations  must  be  of  a high  order,  and  they 
are  consequently  rare : § yet  still  more  rare  it  is  to  find  superadded  to  them  the  gifts 
of  fortune.  From  whom  then  if  abstract  science  is  to  be  fostered  and  rewarded,  is 

* Lectures  on  Natural  Philosophy , lect.  i,  vol.  i,  p.  2. 

t The  Soul  in  Nature.  Bohn’s  Scientific  Library,  1852,  p.  141. 

X Smithsonian  Report  for  1853,  p.  8. 

[§  Dr.  Peter  Mark  Koget  has  well  observed:  “Important  discoveries  in  science  seem 
often  to  arise  from  accident;  but  on  closer  examination  it  is  found  that  they  always 
imply  the  exercise  of  profound  thought.  As  the  fertility  of  the  soil  is  essential  to  the 
germination  and  growth  of  the  seed  which  the  wind  may  have  scattered  on  its  surface, 
so  it  is  principally  from  the  qualities  of  mind  in  the  observer  that  an  observation  de- 
rives its  value  and  may  be  made  eventually  to  expand  into  an  important  branch  of 
scimce.”  ( Galvanism , 8vo,  London,  1832,  chap,  i,  p.  1.)] 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


71 


this  encouragement  to  come  ? Certainly  not  from  the  public  ; for  what  the  multitude 
cannot  appreciate  they  cannot  he  expected  to  reward.  If  indeed  the  speculations  of 
the  philosopher  can  he  turned  into  immediate  advantage  by  the  manufacturer  or  the 
merchant,  the  inventor  is  in  a fair  way  of  dividing  profits  with  the  applier ; hut  we 
are  not  at  present  considering  such  cases.  . . . That  discoveries  which  event- 

ually have  proved  extensively  applicable  to  commerce  were  never  so  suspected  when 
their  first  rudiments  were  developed,  is  too  notorious  to  he  disputed ; for  the  discovery 
and  the  application  of  a new  principle  require  very  different  powers  of  mind.  . . . 

It  is  a maxim  of  the  vulgar  to  esteem  every  requirement  of  this  sort  in  proportion 
to  the  direct  benefit  it  confers  on  their  own  interests.”* * * § 

It  is  indeed  too  true  that  the  prosecution  of  scientific  truth  for  truth’s  sake  only, 
is  popularly  held  in  little  favor,  and  instead  of  receiving  assistance,  is  even  unblush- 
ingly  decried  by  the  would-be  leaders  of  industrial  opinion.  Taking  no  lessons  from 
the  splendid  triumphs  of  the  past,  which  constantly  assure  us  that  the  discovery  of 
one  age — naked  and  unprized,  is  the  necessary  foundation  for  the  invention  of  the 
next,  intelligent  editors  still  repeat  the  annual  cry  in  superior  judgment  on  the  pro- 
ceedings of  learned  associations,  “Dispense,  gentlemen,  with  these  barren  and  unin- 
teresting  papers,  and  give  us  something  1 practical.’  ” 

The  average  citizen,  professing  a patronizing  admiration  of  “ science,”  is  able  per- 
' haps  to  appreciate  the  physics  of  machinery,  and  the  chemistry  of  manufactures. 
Eager  for  the  rewards  which  may  be  'won  from  nature  by  her  students,  he  would  gladly 
be  taught  some  new  magneto-electric  process  for  converting  cellulose  into  bread,  or 
t( oleomargarine”  into  butter;  and  yet  in  ignorant  ingratitude,  would  as  gladly  mo- 
nopolize the  very  thunderbolt,  when  Science  once  has  forged  it  for  the  use  of  Art.t 

But  let  those  incapable  of  conceiving  a higher  utility  than  the  material,  at  least  ex- 
ercise that  prudent  reason  they  so  much  vaunt,  and  at  least  endeavor  to  secure  for 
that  self-interest  they  so  diligently  pursue,  the  character  of  an  enlightened  policy.  The 
unpromising  preparation  for  a possible  magnetic  telegraph  was  quietly  advanced  by  a 
fine  succession  of  earnest  students  (little  known  or  respected  by  the  multitude),  who 
never  paused  to  query  “ the  use  of  it,”  and  who  (it  is  safe  to  say)  would  never  have 
accomplished  their  beneficent  mission  had  their  investigations  been  directly  prompted 
by  the  inspirations  of  a mercenary  interests  It  may  be  confidently  proclaimed  as  a firm 
induction  from  all  our  past  knowledge,  that  so  intimately  bound  together  is  the  entire 
framework  and  system  of  the  world,  that  no  extension  of  our  observation  of  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature  and  of  our  insight  into  the  laws  of  nature  (which  are  the  laws  of 
God),  is  not  either  a direct  advancement  in  physical  power  and  well-being,  or  a neces- 
sary stepping-stone  to  other  truths  which  shall  prove  such. 

“ Scientific  researches  are  often  supposed  by  the  uninformed  to  be  of  little  or  no  real 
importance,  and  indeed  are  frequently  ridiculed  as  barren  of  all  practical  utility.  But 
nothing  is  more  mistaken  than  this.  The  most  valuable  and  productive  of  the  arts  of  life, 
the  most  important  and  wonder-working  inventions  of  modern  times,  owe  their  being 
and  value  to  scientific  investigations.  By  these  have  been  discovered  physical  truths 
and  laws,  the  intelligent  application  of  which  to  practical  inventions  has  given  im- 
"mense  benefits  to  the  world.  The  germs  of  these  valuable  improvements  and  inventions 
have  been  found  and  developed  by  scientific  research, — the  original  forms  of  which  have 
“often  seemed  to  the  many  to  be  as  idle  and  useless  as  they  were  curious.”  $ 

*Swainson,  On  the  Study  of  Natural  History  (Cabinet  Cyclopaedia),  part  iv,  chap,  ii, 
sects.  244,  245,  pp.  354-357. 

t “ Science  has  scattered  her  material  benefits  so  lavishly  whenever  she  has  been  in 
presence,  that  no  small  number  of  her  followers  and  all  the  multitude  have  left  off 
gazing  on  the  resplendency  of  her  countenance,  in  their  eager  scramble  for  her  gifts.” 
(Quarterly  Review,  June,  1841,  vol.  lixviii,  p.  185.) 

+ Of  those  attempting  the  interrogation  of  nature  “on  account  of  the  advantage  and 
benefit  to  be  derived  from  it,”  it  may  be  said  in  Bacon’s  happy  simile : “ Like  Atalanta, 
they  leave  the  course  to  pick  up  the  golden  apple,  interrupting  their  speed  and  giving 
up  the  victory.”  (Novum  Organum,  book  i,  aphorism  70,  Bohn’s  edition,  1858,  p.  407.) 

§ Report  of  special  committee  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  on  the  distribution  of  the 
income  of  the  Smithsonian  fund.  Smithsonian  Report  for  1853,  p.  86. 


72 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


And  to  the  same  effect  let  us  quote  in  conclusion  a few  of  Henry’s  urgent  utterances. 
“ Every  well-established  truth  is  an  addition  to  the  sum  of  human  power ; and  though 
it  nftay  not  find  an  immediate  application  to  the  economy  of  every-day  life,  we  may 
safely  commit  it  to  the  stream  of  time,  in  the  confident  anticipation  that  the  world 
will  not  fail  to  realize  its  beneficial  results!”* * * § 

“ Unfortunately  there  has  always  been  in  England  and  in  this  country  a tendency 
to  undervalue  the  advantages  of  profound  thought,  and  to  regard  with  favor  only 
those  investigations  which  are  immediately  applicable  to  the  wants  of  the  present 
hour.  But  it  should  be  recollected  that  the  scientific  principles  which  at  one  period 
appear  of  no  practical  value,  and  are  far  removed  from  popular  appreciation,  at  another 
time  in  the  further  development  of  the  subject,  become  the  means  of  individual  pros- 
perity and  of  national  w-ealth.”t 

“ The  progress  of  society  and  the  increase  of  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  the  human 
family  depend  as  a basis  on  the  degree  of  our  knowledge  of  the  laws  by  which  Di- 
vine wisdom  conducts  the  affairs  of  the  universe.  He  has  created  us  with  rational 
souls,  and  endowed  us  with  faculties  to  comprehend  in  some  measure  the  modes  in 
which  the  operations  of  nature  are  effected ; and  just  in  proportion  to  the  advance  we 
make  by  patient  and  persevering  study  in  the  knowledge  of  those  modes  or  laws,  are 
we  enabled  to  apply  the  forces  of  nature  to  our  own  use  and  to  avert  the  dangers  to 
which  we  are  exposed  from  our  ignorance  of  their  varied  influences.  Nearly  all  the 
great  inventions  which  distinguish  the  present  century,  are  the  results  immediately 
or  remotely  of  the  application  of  scientific  principles  to  practical  purposes;  and  in 
most  cases  these  applications  have  been  suggested  by  the  student  of  nature,  -whose 
primary  object  was  the  discovery  of  abstract  truth.  The  statement,  cannot  be  too 
often  repeated,  that  each  branch  of  knowledge  is  connected  with  every  other,  and 
that  no  light  can  be  gained  in  regard  to  one  which  is  not  reflected  upon  all.  Thus  re- 
searches which  at  first  sight  appear  the  farthest  removed  from  useful  application,  are 
in  time  found  to  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  advancement  of  art,  and  conse- 
quently on  the  progress  of  society.  » 

u The  world  generally  has  failed  to  recognize  the  importance  of  abstract  scientific 
truths.  Although  these  truths  constitute  the  most  important  elements  of  modern 
civilization,  since  they  give  man  power  and  control  over  the  inherent  forces  of  nature, 
and  enable  him  to  render  these  the  obedient  slaves  of  his  will, — yet  there  is  even  at 
this  time,  no  country  (however  intelligent  it  may  appear  in  other  respects)  that  has 
made  adequate  provision  for  the  discovery  and  development  of  these  important  princi- 
ples. ”§ 

NOTE  B.  (From  p.  It!.) 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  GALVANOMETER. 

In  1808,  Johann  Solomon  Christian  Sehweigger,  professor  of  natural  philosophy  at 
Nuremberg,  and  afterward  at  Halle,  published  a memoir  “ On  the  employment  of  the 
magnetic  force  for  measuring  the  electrical.”  From  the  somewhat  obscure  descrip- 
tion it  appears  however  that  the  instrument  he  had  devised  was  simply  an  “ electro- 
scope ” for  indicating  the  static  repulsion  of  ordinary  ®r  mechanical  electricity;  the 
magnetic  needle,  armed  at  each  end  with  a brass  button,  being  mounted  on  an  insu- 
lated stand  or  pivot,  and  used  as  .a  substitute  for  the  torsion  electrometer  of  Coulomb.  |; 
This  arrangement  therefore  involved  no  principle  of  the  galvanometer. 

In  1811,  De  la  Rive,  in  a letter  to  the  editors  of  the  “ Bibiiotli&que  Britannique,” 
recounting  some  experiments,  applied  the  term  “galvanometer”  to  an  instrument  for 

* Smithsonian  Report  for  1856,  p.  20. 

t Agricultural  Report  of  Commissioner  of  Patents  for  1857,  p.  420. 

t Smithsonian  Report  for  1859,  pp.  14,  15. 

§ Smithsonian  Report  for  1866,  p.  16. 

II  Gehlen’s  Journal  fur  die  Chemie  und  PhysiJc,  8vo,  Berlin,  1808,  vol.  vii,  pp.  206-208.. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


73 


measuring  the  quantity  of  tlie^  galvanic  current  by  its  decomposing  energy.  * Dr. 
Scliweigger,  in  a notice  of  this  paper,  remarked  that  he  had  previously  measured 
the  battery  force  by  the  quantity  of  gases  evolved  from  water  in  a given  interval,  t 
These  experiments  likewise,  have  evidently  no  relation  to  tlin  present  use  of  the  term 
‘ ‘Galvanometer.  ” 

Nine  years  earlier  than  this  however,  (or  six  years  before  Schweigger’s  needle  elec- 
trometer,) the  galvanic  deflection  of  the  magnetic  needle  had  been  distinctly  observed 
and  accurately  recorded.  For  more  than  a century,  repeated  endeavors  had  been  made 
to  discover  some  relation  between  the  magnetic  and  the  electric  attractions  and  repul- 
sions, or  to  unite  them  by  a single  law.  In  1774,  a prize  was  offered  by  the  Academy 
of  Bavaria  for  the  best  examination  of  and  dissertation  on  the  question,  “Is  there  a 
real  and  physical  analogy  between  electric  and  magnetic  forces  ?”  Professor  J.  H.  Van 
Swinden,  of  Franeker,  Holland,  one  of  the  successful  competitors,  supported  the  con- 
clusion that  the  similaritiesfwere  entirely  superficial,  and  that  the  two  powers  were 
essentially  different  in  kind.  On  the  other  hand,  Professors  Steiclehner  and  Hubner 
contended  that  analogies  so  curious  must  imply  a single  agent,  t 

But  the  true  reaction  between  these  agencies  could  not  well  be  exhibited  until  after 
1800,  when  Yolta  devised  his  galvanic  battery ; which  for  the  first  time  enabled  physi- 
cists to  employ  a continuous  electric  current.  Gian  Domenico  Romagnosi,  a native  of 
Northern  Italy,  a celebrated  publicist  and  author  of  several  works  on  historical,  legal, 
and  political  philosophy,  was  led  near  the  close  of  the  last  century  to  occupy  himself  for 
several  years  with  scientific  investigations.  The  electrical  problem  attracted  his  at- 
tention, and  after  varied  experiments  with  the  aid  of  the  new  galvanic  appliance, 
his  versatile  activity  was  partly  rewarded ; he  being  first  of  physical  inquirers  to  make 
the  capital  discovery  of  the  singular  directive  influence  exerted  by  the  galvanic  cur- 
rent on  a magnetic  needle.  This  new  phenomenon — of  which  he  could  not  anticipate 
the  importance  or  the  consequnces,  was  announced  in  the  “Gazzdtta  di  Trento”  of 
August  3,  1802,  an  Italian  newspaper  published  at  Trent,  in  which  city  he  had  for 
many  years  resided.  $ If  the  channel  of ^publication  for  a contribution  to  science  of 
such  value  was  unfortunate,  the  account  was  at  least  republished  in  forms  better  suited 
to  arrest  attention  from  the  learned. 

In  a work  of  some  note  and  merit,  entitled  “ Essai  Tlidoretique  et  Experimental  sur 
le  Galv  anisine,”  by  Prof.  Giovanni  Aldini  (a  nephew  of  Galvani),  quarto,  published  at 
Paris  in  1804,  the  author,  at  page  191,  alluding  to  the  sujiposed  magnetic  influence  of 
a galvanic  circuit,  states,  “ This  new  property  of  galvanism  has  been  confirmed  by  M. 
Romanesi,  a physicist  of  Trent,  who  lias  observed  that  galvanism  produces  a declina- 
tion of  the  magnetic  needle.”  This  work  was  republished  shortly  afterward  in  two 
volumes  octavo. 

In  the  “ Bibliotlieque  Universelle”  (Sect.  Sciences  et  Arts),  January,  1821,  (shortly 
after  Oersted’s  announcement,)  at  page  75,  attention  is  called  to  Aldini’s  Treatise  on 
Galvanism,  and  the  passage  above  given  is  quoted.  The  same  notice  and  citation  are 
also  published  in  Gilbert’s  “Annalen  der  Pliysik,”  1821,  vol.  lxviii,  page  208. 

* Bibliotlieque  Britannique,  for  February,  1811,  vol.  xlvi. 

1 “On  a Galvanometer.”  Schweigger’s  Journal  fur  Cliemie  und  Pliysik,  8vo,  Nurnberg, 
1811,  vol.  ii,  part  4,  pp.  424-434. 

+ Notwithstanding  the  plausibility  of  this  supposition,  it  remains  to  the  present  day 
entirely  unconfirmed.  The  conclusion  of  Van  Swinden  was  correct.  Theonly  approach 
to  a closer  analogy  since  obtained,  is  the  remarkable  fact  discovered  by  Ampere 
in  1820,  that  two  insulated  wires,  free  to  move,  through  which  electricity  is  flowing 
in  the  same  direction,  attract  each  other  like  two  dissimilar  magnetic  poles ; and  that 
they  repel  each  other  when  their  currents  are  reversed,  like  two  similar  magnetic  poles. 
But  the  differences  between  these  forms  of  attraction  are  still  so  radical,  as  to  incline 
some  physicists  to  the  opinion  that  the  one  (that  of  magnetism)  is  inherent  and  in- 
destructible, and  the  other  (that  of  electricity)  is  a merely  kinetic  or  dynamic  phe- 
nomenon : while  others  would  regard  the  two  as  both  kinetic. 

$ Romagnosi  was  chief-justice  at  Trent,  from  1791  to  1794  ; and  in  December  of  1802, 
not  long  after  his  scientific  achievement,  he  was  made  professor  of  law  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Parma. 


74 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


In  a still  more  popular  work  on  galvanism,  by  Prof.  Joseph  Iza'rn,  entitled  “ Manuel 
du  Galvanisme,”  etc.  octavo,  published  at  Paris,  in  1805,  in  section  ix,  at  page  120,  it 
is  also  stated : “According  to  the  observations  of  Romagnosi,  a physicist  of  Trent,  a 
magnetic  needle  being  submitted  to  a galvanic  current  undergoes  a declination.”  This  : 
work  is  referred  to  in  a discussion  by  Mr.  Latimer  Clark,  of  London.*  Lastly,  in  the 
memoir  of  Romagnosi  contained  in  the  “Nouvelle  Biographie  G6n<5rale”  (edited  by 
Hcefer),  vol.  xlii,  pages  574,  575,  it  is  mentioned,  “ He  discovered  the  deviation  of  the 
magnetic  needle  by  galvanism.” 

Although  this  pregnant  discovery  of  Romagnosi  appears  to  have  been  known  both 
to  Dr.  Soemmering  and  to  Baron  Schilling  in  1815,  yet  to  neither  of  them  did  it  sug- 
gest any  applicability  to  the  purpose  of  telegraphy.  Dr.  Hamel,  of  St.  Petersburg,  in 
his  interesting  account  of  the  early  history  of  the  telegraph,  informs  us : “I  have  been 
endeavoring  to  find  out  from  the  papers  of  Soemmering  whether  he  and  Baron  Schilling 
might  have  had  a knowledge  of  the  Italian  Gian-Domeniao  Romagnosi’s  important  dis- 
covery made  many  years  ago,  that  the  magnetic  needle  deviates  from  its  normal  direc- 
tion when  under  the  influence  of  the  galvanic  current,  and  of  which  he  had  published 
an  account  in  a newspaper  at  Trent  on  the  3d  of  August,  1802.  ...  I found  that 

Baron  Schilling,  immediately,  after  his  return  to  Munich  in  1815,  communicated  to 
Soemmering  the  little  book,  ‘Manuel  du  Galvanisme/  by  Joseph  Izarn,  professor  of 
natural  philosophy  at  the  Lyc6e  Bonaparte,  which  was  printed  in  Paris  in  1805,  and 
in  which,  on  page  120,  mention  is  made  of  Romagnosi’s  discovery.  I have  also  seen  a 
note  from  Soemmering  mentioning  that  he  had  read  this  treatise  with  attention.  I 
came  however  to  the  conclusion  that  neither  to  Soemmering  nor  to  Baron  Schilling,  had 
any  idea  of  a practical  application  of  Romagnosi’s  observation  presented  itself.”  t Nor 
-is  this  at  all  surprising : for  the  similar  discovery  and  announcement  by  Oersted  in  1820, 
would  just  as  little  have  suggested  any  practical  method  of  communicating  intelligence 
to  a distance.  And  indeed  had  the  experiment  been  attempted,  it  would  have  resulted 
.n  absolute  failure.  It  needed  the  keen  brains  and  active  hands  ot  a succession  of  pro- 
found investigators, — of  Schweigger,  and  Ampere,  and  Arago,  and  Sturgeon,  and 
Henry, — to  develop  fully  the  twofold  capacity  of  electro-magnetism. 

To  the  natural  inquiry  why  the  very  same  announcement  which— made  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  century — fell  as  it  were  “still-born,”  should  when  again  made  eighteen 
years  later,  have  sprung  into  so  exuberant  and  active  a vitality,  the  answer  seems  to 
be,— first,  the  greater  care  taken  by  Oersted,  the  later  husbandman,  to  scatter  the  seed 
broadcast  over  Europe ; | and  secondly,  the  riper  condition  of  the  intellectual  soil, 
at  the  later  Spring.  Romagnosi’s  work  would  seem  to  have  been  prematurely  attempt- 
ed ; while  Oersted’s,  no  more  meritorious,  had  the  good  fortune  to  be  taken  up  and 
fostered  by  still  more  scrutinizing  coadjutors:  and  thus  while  the  early  sowing  fell 
by  the  wayside  or  in  stony  places,  the  later  sowing  fell  on  good  ground,  well  pre- 
pared 5 and  there  speedily  followed  at  the  hands  of  a diligent  band  of  laborers  an 
abundant  and  most  precious  harvest. 

Tlie  question  may  possibly  arise,  could  Oersted  have  probably  had  any  intimation 
of  Romagnosi’s  earlier  cultivation  of  the  same  field  ? Considering  how  little  the  lat- 
ter name  is  known  among  scientific  men  to-day,  the  question  may  be  confidently 
answered  in  the  negative.  Dr.  Hamel  however  has  ventured  the  severe  judgment  : 
“I  cannot  forego  stating  my  belief  that  Oersted  knew  of  Romagnosi’s  discovery 
announced  in  1802,  which  was  eighteen  years  before  the  publication  of  his  own  obser- 
vations. It  was  mentioned  in  Giovanni  Aldini’s  (the  nephew  of  Galvani’s)  book.  . . 

. Oersted  was  in  Paris  in  1802,  and  1803,  and  it  appears  from  the  book  of  Aldini, 
that  at  the  time  he  finished  it,  Oersted  was  still  in  communication  with  him ; for  he 

* Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  April  23,  1858,  vol.  vi,  p.  356. 

\ Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  July  29,  1859,  vol.  vii,  p.  605. 

X “Hans  Christian  Oersted,  at  Copenhagen,  had  directed  the  attention  of  the  scum- 
tific  world  much  more  effectually  than  Romagnosi  of  Italy  had  done,  to  the  faet  that 
the  magnetic  needle  deflects  when  a galvanic  current  comes  near  it.  Dr.  Hamel. 
{Jour.  Soc.  Arts.  1859,  vol.  vii,  p.  606.) 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


75 


jays  at  the  end  (page  376),  he  had  not  been  able  to  add  the  information  received 
from  Oersted,  doctor  of  the  University  at  Copenhagen,  about  the  galvanic  labors  of 
jcientific  men  in  that  Country.”* * 

All  that  is  known  of  Oersted’s  simple,  generous,  and  upright  character,  utterly  re- 
pels any  such  dark  suspicion:  and  the  remarkable  interval  of  eighteen  years,  which 
elapsed  between  the  two  dates  of  publication,  negatives  even  the  probability  of  pla- 
giarism. It  seems  only  wonderful  that  no  other  experimental  physicist  haj>pened  to 
Lit  upon  the  observation  in  all  those  years.! 

In  Sabine’s  treatise  on  the  “ Electric  Telegraph,”  reference  is  made  in  a note  to 
Izarn’s  ‘‘Manual  of  Galvanism”  and  to  his  statement  of  Romaguosi’s  early  discovery  :i 
and  in  the  second  edition  (of  its  historical  portion),  publishecLtwo  years  later,  Sabine 
remarks:  “The  discovery  of  the  power  of  a galvanic  current  to  deflect  a magnet  nee- 
dle, as  well  as  to  polarize  an  unmagnetized  one,  was  known  to  and  described  as 
early  as  1805  by  Professor  Izarn  in  his  ‘Manuel  du  Gal vanisme.’  . . . After  ex- 

plaining the  way  to  prepare  the  apparatus,  which  consists  in  putting  a freely  suspended 
magnet  needle  parallel  and  close  to  a straight  metallic  conductor  through  which  a 
galvanic  current  is  circulating,  he  describes  the  effects  in  the  following  words:  ‘Ac- 
cording to  the  observations  of  Romagn<$si,  a physicist  of  Trent,  a magnetic  needle,  being 
submitted  to  a galvanic  current,  undergoes  a declination ; and  according  to  those  of 
J.  Mojon,  a learned  chemist  of  Genoa,  unmagnetized  needles  acquire  by  this  means  a 
kind  of  magnetic  polarity.’  To  Romagn6si,  physicist  of  Trent,  therefore,  and  not  as 
is  generally  believed,  to  Oersted,  physicist  of  Copenhagen,  (who  first  observed  in  1820 
the  phenomenon  of  the  deflection  of  a magnet  needle  by  a voltaic  current,)  is  due  the 
credit  of  having  made  this  important  discovery. 

While  this  is  undoubtedly  a correct  verdict,  it  remains  none  the  less  true  that  the 
rapid  awakening  of  European  physicists  to  the  significance  and  importance  of  the 
principle  of  the  galvanometer,  was  due  entirely  to  its  rediscovery  and  reannounce- 
ment  by  Professor  Hans  Christian  Oersted  in  1820. 

NOTEC.  (From  p.  21.) 

ANTICIPATIONS  OF  ELECTRO-MAGNETISM. 

From  the  Treatises  on  Galvanism,  by  G.  Aldini,  published  in  1804,  and  by  J.  Izarn, 
published  in  1805,  (previously  noticed,)  we  learn  that  Giuseppi  Mojon,  (Joseph  Moyon 
in  the  French,)  a chemist  of  Genoa,  on  placing  steel  sewing-needles  in  connection  with 
a galvanic  battery  observed  that  they  became  magnetic:  (probably  with  transverse 
polarity.)  The  description  is  however  very  obscure.  (Aldini,  p.  191;  Izarn,  p.  120.) 

“It  deserves  to  be  remembered,”  says  Dr.  Hamel,  “ that  from  Aldini’s  book  it  was 
known  that  the  chemist  Giuseppi  Mojon,  at  Genoa,  had  before  1804  observed  in  un- 
magnetized needles  exposed  to  the  galvanic  current,  ‘ a sort  of  polarity’.  Izarn  repeats 
this  also  in  his  ‘Manuel  du  Galvanisme;’  which  book  was  one  of  those  that  by  order 
were  to  be  placed  in  the  library  of  every  Lycde  in  France  ”.|| 

Still  a quarter  of  a century  earlier,  in  1777,  (now  a century  ago,)  Giovanni  Baptista 
Beccaria,  a distinguished  Italian  natural  philosopher,  professor  of  experimental  science 
at  Turin,  and  author  of  several  works  on  Electricity,  in  the  course  of  his  experiments 

* Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  July  29,  1859,  vol.  vii,  p.  60G. 

t “ The  invention  all  admired;  and  each  how  he 
To  be  the  inventor  missed; — so  easy  seemed 
Once  found,  which  yet  unfound,  most  would  have  thought 
Impossible.” 

(Milton’s  Far.  Lost,  book  vi.) 

* \lhe  Electric  Telegraph,  by  Robert  Sabine,  8vo,  London,  1867,  part  i,  chap,  iv,  sec. 
29,  p.  22. 

! § History  of  the  Electric  Telegraph,  2d  edition  (in  Weale’sRu  limentary  Treatises),  1869 
chap,  iv,  sec.  27,  pp.  23,  24. 

* \\  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Arts,  1859,  vol.  vii,  p.  606. 


76 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


“found  that  a needle  through  which  he  had  sent  an  electric  shock  had  in  consequence 
acquired  a curious  species  of  polarity ; for  instead  of  turning  as  usual  to  the  north  and 
south,  it  assumed  a position  at  right  angles  to  this,  its  two  ends  pointing  to  the  east1 
and  west.”*  This  curious  phenomenon  (which  if  properly  investigated  might  have 
led  to  the  discovery  of  electro-magnetism)  was  exhibited  by  the  action  of  common 
frictional  or  mechanical  electricity : galvanism  not  having  been  discovered  till  some 
time  later.  It  was  probably  this  same  transverse  polarity  that  was  afterward  observed] 
by  Mojon. 

NOTE  D.  (From  p.  30.) 

$ HENRY’S  SPOOL  MAGNET  IN  EUROPE. 

Among  the  physicists  of  Europe  who  repeated  Henry’s  experiments  on  a similar! 
scale,  Claude  S.  M.  Pouillet,  professor  of  physics  at  the  Ecole  Polytechnique  and  director 
of  the  Conservatoire  at  Paris,  made  in  1832,  a magnet  capable  of  sustaining  900  pounds. 
At  the  session  of  the  Societe  Philomatique  of  Paris,  for  June  23,  1832,  Pouillet  gave  an 
account  of  recent  experiments  made  by  him  with  an  electro-magnet  of  large  size,  ( 
having  several  thousand  feet  of  wire  wound  upon  it.  The  following  is  the  report  ofj 
this  communication  published  in  the  “Bulletin”  of  the  Society  for  August  of  that  year: 

“M.  Pouillet  communicated  to  the  Society  the  results  of  experiments  which  he  had 
just  made  on  the  magnetization  of  round  bars  of  iron,  (bent  in  horseshoe  form,  and 
surrounded  on  the  arms  with  iron  wire  of  a length  of  several  thousand  feet,)  by 
means  of  an  electric  current  established  in  this  iron  wire.  The  magnetism  thus  ex- 
cited in  a magnet  one  foot  in  height,  formed  of  a bar  of  iron  two  and  a half  inches  in 
diameter,  and  wrapped  with  4,000  feet  of  wire,  is  sufficiently  strong  to  support  a 
weight  up  to  900  pounds,  even  when  the  contact  of  the  armature  with  the  magnet  is 
reduced  to  an  edge:  so  that  the  magnetic  force  is  in  this  case  stronger  than  the  molec- 
ular attraction,  t Attending  such  magnetization,  on  a connection  being  made  be- 
tween the  two  extremities  of  the  conducting  wire,  a spark  and  a strong  shock  are 
produced.  In  another  experiment,  two  similar  magnets  similarly  arranged,  having 
been  placed  facing  each  other,  and  varied  in  distance  from  contact  up  to  a separation 
of  a foot,  the  magnetization  of  the  one  produced  a magnetization  of  the  other  by  in- 
duction ; so  as  to  effect  an  electric  current  aiid  spark  when  the  two  extremities  of  the 
conducting  wire  were  brought  very  close  together.  In  the  latter  case  there  was  felt 
also  a vivid  shock.  This  shock  may  be  communicated  through  a platinum  wire  even 
to  the  distance  of  a hundred  feet.”  X 

The  source  of  this  “ intensity  ” magnet  is  as  unmistakable  as  is  that  of  the  magneto-elec- 
tric spark  obtained  by  its  means.  Had  the  experimenter  however  divided  his  4,000  feet 
of  wire  into  50  or  60  separate  coils,  arranging  suitably  his  galvanic  battery  in  “multi- 
ple arc”  as  a “ quantity”  battery,  he  would  certainly  have  greatly  increased  the  at- 
tractive force  of  his  magnet,  and  rendered  it  comparable  to  Henry’s  Yale-College  mag- 
net in  lifting-power. 

Pouillet  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Elements  de  Physique  Experimentale,  published  in 
1837,  gives  a drawing  of  a double  “ intensity”  magnet  arranged  like  Henry’s  in  a sup- 
porting frame,  of  which  he  says : “Figures  432  and  433  represent  an  electro-magnet 

*P.  M.  Roget,  Treatise  on  Electro-magnetism,  1832,  chap.i,  art.  6,  p.  3.  (This  treatise 
is  included  in  the  “Library  of  Useful  Knowledge,”  vol.  ii.) 

t [Notwithstanding  the  considerable  range  of  distance  through  which  magnetism 
acts,  it  is  not  probable  that  the  aggregate  magnetic  tenacity  of  iron  in  any  case 
amounts  to  more  than  a very  small  fraction  of  its  cohesive  tenacity.  ] 

X Seance  of  23d  June,  1832.  Nouveau  Bulletin  des  Sciences,  public  par  la  “Socidtt;  Philo- 
matique de  Paris,”  livraison  pour  Aoftt,  1832,  p.  127.  This  brief  notice,  republished  in 
Quetelet’q  Correspondence  Mathematique  et  Physique  de  l’Observatoire  de  Bruxelles,  1832, 
liv.  v,  vol.  vii,  pp.  317,  318,  is  the  only  paper  by  Pouillet  on  the  subject  of  magnetiza- 
tion by  electric  currents,  contained  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Royhl  Society.  Presumably 
therefore  his  only  contribution  on  the  subject. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


77 


hieli  I constructed  in  1831 ; and  which  easily  supports  nearly  one  ton  (more  than  a 
lousand  kilogrammes)  when  submitted  to  the  current  of  a strong  battery  of  24  pairs, 
consists  of  two  liorse-shoes  opposed  to  each  other,  formed  of  round  bars  from  three 
) four  inches  (8  to  10  centimetres)  in  diameter,  and  from  two  to  two  and  a half  feet 
>0  to  80  centimetres)  in  total  length.  The  two  arms  of  each  horse-slioe  are  enveloped 
ith  about  1,100  yards  (one  thousand  metres)  of  copper  wire  26  thousandths  of  an 
ich  (two-thirds  of  a millimetre)  in  thickness.  The  same  current  traverses  succes- 
vely  the  2,200  yards  (two  thousand  metres)  of  wire  ; but  the  helices  are  so  disposed  as  to 
ring  their  opposite  poles  together.”  And  the  author  repeats  that  as  soon  as  the  cur- 
mtis  established,  the  lower  free  magnet  is  attracted  to  the  upper  fixed  magnet  with 
ich  force  as  to  lift  “ an  enormous  weight,  often  exceeding  a thousand  kilogrammes.”* 
The  remark  just  made  applies  equally  to  this  example  of  the  Henry  “ intensity” 
agnet,  that  by  the  substitution  of  the  multiple  coil  and  the  “ quantity”  battery,  it 
lould  have  equalled  the  Henry  Yale-College  magnet,  if  not  his  Princeton  magnet. 
There  is  however  in  this  latter  account,  an  evident  error  of  date,  which  should  be 
oted.  The  differences  of  detail  (in  every  particular)  between  the  two  magnets  re- 
:rred  to,  preclude  any  suggestion  of  the  latter  being  an  inaccurately  remembered 
3Count  of  the  former.  The  systematic  excess  of  the  latter  magnet  in  every  element 
f construction  and  performance  equally  excludes  the  possibility  of  its  having  been 
evised  by  its  author  prior  to  his  notice  before  the  “Society  Pliilomatique”  (on  the 
Id  of  June,  1832)  of  his  success  in  developing  a magnetic  power  of  900  pounds.  And 
le  fact  that  Pouillet,  in  the  second  edition  of  his  Elements  of  Experimental  Physics 
ublished  in  1832  (“revue,  corrig6e  et  augmentee”),  makes  no  allusion  whatever  to 
ich  a magnet,  may  be  taken  as  conclusive  evidence  that  no  such  magnet  (nor  any 
:her)  was  constructed  by  him  in  1831.  t 

The  error  of  statement,  in  his  third  edition  of  the  Elements  of  Physics  is  easily  ex- 
[ained  as  a simple  inadvertence  in  trusting  to  memory  for  a precise  date.! 

It  may  be  accepted  with  tolerable  certainty  that  Pouillet’s  later  and  larger  magnet 
>uld  not  have  been  made  earlier  than  the  latter  part  of  1832.  And  yet  this  inadver- 
>nt  antedating  by  one  year  (wholly  unimportant  though  it  be)  has  been  very  precisely 
(produced  in  the  fourth  edition  of  Pouillet’s  Physics,  published  in  1844,  in  the  fifth 
lition  published  in  .1847,  in  the  sixth  edition  published  in  1853,  in  the  seventh  edi- 
on  published  in  1856,  and  presumably  in  every  subsequent  edition,  as  well  as  in  the 
nmerous  translations  of  this  popular  work.  The  earliest  date  of  publication  of  Pou- 
let’s  900-pomnl  magnet  is  August,  1832;  of  his  second,  or  2200-pound  magnet,  is  1837. 

NOTE  E.  (From  p.  32.) 

henry’s  early  telegraphic  experiments. 

The  following  are  some  of  the  testimonials  of  living  eye-witnesses  to  the  operation 
f Henry’s  early  electro-magnetic  telegraph,  during  the  years  1831  and  1832. 

The  Hon.  Alexander  W.  Bradford,  a former  pupil  of  the  Albany  Academy  under 
tenry’s  professorship  in  1831,  and  who  left  the  academy  in  1832,  thus  recalls  his  aca- 
emic  experiences,  a third  of  a century  later : 4 ‘And  there  was  another  professor,  whose 
fe  has  been  spared,  who  rose  with  the  sun  to  instruct  his  pupil  eager  after  knowledge  ; 
ho  giving  his  heart  and  soul  to  the  duties  of  the  school,  had  yet  time  for  exploring 

* Elements  de  Physique  Experimental#,  etc.  par  M.  Pouillet,  third  edition,  2 vols.  8vo. 
aris,  1837,  liv.  iii,  sec.  iv,  chap.  5,  art.  277.  Vol.  i,  p.  572. 

t Elements  de  Physique  Experimentalc,  etc.  par  M.  Pouillet,  second  edition,  4 vols.  8vo. 
aris,  1832. 

t As  if  to  magnify  this  accidental  error,  Dr.  Lardner,  in  a popular  text-book  on  the 
ilegrapli,  makes  the  off-hand  statement:  “In  1830,  an  electro-magnet  of  extraordinary 
ower  was  constructed  under  the  superintendence  of  M.  Pouillet  at  Paris. 

Pith  a current  of  moderate  intensity  the  apparatus  is  capable  of  supporting  a weight 
f several  tons."  (Lardner  and  Bright’s  Electric  Telegraph , 12mo.,  London,  1867,  chap. 
, sec.  39,  p.  22.) 


78 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


the  deep  paths  of  science ; who  with  his  wires  and  silk  thread  winding  miles  of  insu- 
lated copper  in  the  commencement  hall  of  the  academy,  patiently  toiled  his  way  to  the 
demonstration  of  the  magnetic  power  of  the  galvanic  battery;  and  years  before  the 
invention  of  the  telegraph,  proclaimed  to  America  and  to  Europe  the  means  of  communi- 
cation by  the  electric  fluid.  I was  an  eye-witness  to  those  experiments  and  to  tlieir 
eventual  demonstration  and  triumph.  In  this  commemorative  festival,  let  us  not  for- 
get to  honor  the  name  of  Joseph  Henry.”  * 

On  the  same  interesting  occasion  Dr.  Orlando  Meads  thus  recounted  Henry’s  early 
triumph:  “The  older  students  of  the  academy  in  the  years  1830,  1831,  and  1832,  and 
others  who  witnessed  his  experiments,  which  at  that  time  excited  so  much  interest  in 
this  city,  wull  remember  the  long  coils  of  wire  which  ran  circuit  upon  circuit  for  more 
than  a mile  in  length  around  one  of  the  upper  rooms  in  the  academy,  for  the  purpose 
of  illustrating  the  fact  that  a galvanic  current  could  be  transmitted  through  its  whole 
length  so  as  to  excite  a magnet  at  the  farther  end  of  the  line,  and  thus  move  a steel 
bar  which  struck  a bell.  This  in  a scientific  point  of  view,  was  the  demonstration  and 
accomplishment  of  all  that  was  required  for  the  magnetic  telegraph.  The  science  of 
the  telegraph  was  here  complete.  It  needed  only  the  inventive  genius  of  Morse  to 
supply  the  admirable  instrument  which  was  to  make  it  available  for  practical  use. 

. . . All  honor  to  the  inventor ; but  let  us  not  forget  that  the  click  of  the  telegraph 

which  is  heard  from  every  joint  of  those  mystic  wires  which  now  link  together  every 
city,  and  village,  and  post,  and  camp,  and  station,  all  over  this  continent,  is  but  the 
echo  of  that  little  bell  which  first  sounded  in  that  upper  room  of  the  academy.  These 
facts  are  a part  of  the  history  of  the  academy  ; and  it  is  fitting  that  on  an  occasion 
like  this,  so  important  a discovery  made  by  one  of  her  own  sons,  in  her  service,  and 
under  her  own  roof,  should  not  be  passed  over  in  silence.”! 

Professor  James  Hall  (in  the  same  year  in  which  he  was  president  of  the  American 
Association,  at  its  Albany  meeting)  addressed  a letter  to  Professor  Henry,  dated  Jan- 
uary 19,  1856,  reciting  the  following  reminiscence : 

“While  a student  of  the  Rensselaer  School  in  Troy  (New  York),  in  August,  1832,  I 
visited  Albany  with  a friend,  having  a letter  of  introduction  to  you  from  Professor 
Eaton.  Our  principal  object  was  to  see  your  electro-magnetic  apparatus,. of  which  we 
had  heard  much,  and  at  the  same  time  the  library  and  collections  of  the  Albany  In- 
stitute. You  showed  us  your  laboratory  in  a lower  story  or  basement  of  the  building, 
and  in  a larger  room  in  an  upper  story,  some  electric  and  galvanic  apparatus,  with 
various  philosophical  instruments.  In  this  room  and  extending  around  the  same,  was 
a circuit  of  wire  stretched  along  the  wall,  and  at  one  termination  of  this  in  the  recess 
of  a window  a bell  was  fixed,  while  the  other  extremity  was  connected  with  a gal- 
vanic apparatus.  You  showed  us  the  manner  in  which  the  bell  could  be  made  to  ring 
by  a current  of  electricity  transmitted  through  this  wire ; and  you  remarked  that  this 
method  might  be  adopted  for  giving  signals  by  the  ringing  of  a bell  at  the  distance 
of  many  miles  from  the  point  of  its  connection  with  the  galvanic  apparatus.  All  the 
circumstances  attending  this  visit  to  Albany  are  fresh  in  my  recollection ; and. during 
the  past  years  while  so  much  has  been  said  respecting  the  invention  of  electric  tele- 
graphs, I have  often  had  occasion  to  mention  the  exhibition  of  your  electric  telegraph 
in  the  Albany  Academy  in  1832.”  $ 

On  the  occasion  of  a visit  by  Henry  to  the  Albany  Institute,  abofit  two  years  later 
than  the  date  of  the  above  letter,  Professor  Hall  made  public  reference  to  the  same 
vivid  recollections.  At  a meeting  of  the  Albany  Institute,  held  Januay  13,  1858,  in 
a hall  of  the  Albany  Academy  building,  “Professor  Hall  called  attention  to  the  fact, 
jn  connection  with  the  visit  of  Professor  Henry,  that  in  1832  he  had  witnessed  in  this 

*“  Commemorative  Address,”  on  the  celebration  of  the  semi-centennial  anniversary 
of  the  Albany  Academy,  June  23,  1863.  Proceedings , etc.  p.  48. 

t“ Historical  Discourse”,  at  semi-centennial  anniversary  of  Albany  Academy,  j 
June  23,  1863.  Proceedings,  etc.  pp.  25,  26. 

t Published  in  the  Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  p.  96. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


79 


building  illustrations  by  Professor  Henry  of  bis  results  in  electro-magnetism.  He  saw 
here  a wire  of  great  length,  through  which  Professor  Henry  transmitted  a current  of 
ralvanic  electricity,  and  made  the  current  to  exert  its  power  in  ringing  a hell  at  the 
extremity  of  the  wire.  This  was  certainly  the  first  establishment  of  the  practicability 
jf  the  magnetic  telegraph.” 

“ Professor  Henry  stated  that  he  felt  gratified  at  this  public  recognition  of  his  early 
labors  and  discoveries  in  reference  to  the  electric  telegraph.”  * 

Henry’s  primitive  electro-magnetic  telegraph  (as  already  stated)  was  properly  an 
icoustic  telegraph.  Morse’s  subsequent  electro-magnetic  telegraph  was  a recording  tel- 
egraph, and  it  was  this  feature  of  automatic  register  which  was  always  regarded  by 
ts  inventor  as  the  most  characteristic  and  important  element  of  his  invention.  “ It 
vas  soon  discovered,  after  the  introduction  of  the  Morse  system  of  telegraph,  that  words 
•ould  be  read  by  the  click  of  the  magnet  ^ but  paper  was  used  upon  which  the  arbitrary 
ilphabet  of  dots  and  lines  was  indented  by  the  instruments,  for  all  matters  of  business 
ip  to  1852,  and  by  many  lines  even  later;  but  at  the  present  time  there  is  scarcely  an 
>ffice  of  any  importance  in  the  United  States  where  the  paper  is  used  to  receive  the 
■ecord.  Ten  years  ago  the  practice  was  almost  invariable  in  the  principal  offices  to 
employ  an  operator  to  read  the  dispatch  from  the  long  strips  of  paper  as  it  came  from 
;he  instrument ; and  a copyist  who  stood  by  his  side  took  it  down.  Now  the  system  is 
mtirely  changed.  The  operator  reads  by  the  click,  and  copies  the  message  himself. 
3y  this  means  the  expense  is  lessened  nearly  one-half,  and  the  risk  of  errors  in  a far 
greater  ratio.”t  To  which  it  may  be  added,  that  the  diminished  duty  of  the  armature 
enables  a single  circuit  to  be  operated  through  double  the  distance  practicable  with 
he  Morse  recorder. 

And  thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that  the  Morse  telegraph  to-day,  is  (by  reversion  to  a 
nore  primitive  type)  essentially  an  acoustic  telegraph. X So  that  “the  click  of  the 
elegrapli  heard  all  over  this  continent,”  is  in  Dr.  Meads’s  expressive  phrase,  function- 
illy  and  in  truth  “ but  the  echo  of  that  little  bell  which  first  sounded  in  that  upper 
oom  of  the  Albany  Academy.” 


NOTE  F.  (From  p.  39.) 

HENRY’S  RELATION  TO  THE  ENGLISH  TELEGRAPH. 

In  consequence  of  the  repeated  disagreements  between  the  English  patentees,  Messrs, 
yooke  and  Wheatstone,  (not  long  after  their  procurement  of  a joint  patent  in  June, 
837,)  as  to  their  respective  shares  of  originality  and  credit  in  the  invention  of  the 
teedle  telegraph,  “Articles  of  Agreement”  were  drawn  up  on  the  16th  of  November, 
.840,  for  the  submission  of  their  grounds  of  claim  and  of  dissatisfaction,  to  the  arbi- 
rament  of  two  referees,  Marc  Isambard  Brunei,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Cooke,  and  John 
Frederick  Daniell,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Wheatstone.  And  in  December  of  1840,  the 

* Trans,  of  Albany  Institute,  vol.  iv,  “Proceedings,”  p.  245. 

t Prescott’s  History  of  Electric  Telegraph,  Boston,  1860,  chap,  v,  pp.  92-93.  To  the  same 
fleet  is  the  statement  in  his  later  work:  “ In  the  larger  telegraph  offices  of  the  United 
Itates  and  Canada,  the  recording  instrument,  or  register,  is  entirely  dispensed  with, 
md  all  communications  are  read  by  the  sound  made  by  the  armature  lever  as  it  vibrates 
>etween  the  upper  and  lower  stops.”  (Prescott’s  Electricity  and  the  Electric  Telegraph, 
>Tew  York,  1877,  chap,  xxx,  p.  435.) 

X Numerous  patents  have  been  granted  for  “sounders,”  having  for  their  object  the 
imphasizing  or  re-enforcement  of  the  sound  from  the  receiving  key"  or  armature 
mpacts.  Prescott,  in  his  recent  work,  speaking  of  Thomson’s  ingenious  and  extremely 
Lelicate  “siphon  recorder,”  remarks : “ It  is  somewhat  curious  that  in  the  progress  of 
elegraphic  improvement,  Morse’s  telegraph  (the  most  valuable  feature  of  which  orig- 
nally  was  considered  to  be  its  capacity  for  recording  communications)  should  have 
>een  modified  in  practice  into  an  acoustic  semaphore,  while  Cooke’s  telegraph  (origi- 
Lally  a semaphore)  should  at  length  have  been  also  modified  into  a recording  instrument.” 
Electricity  and  the  Electric  Telegraph,  chap,  xxxii,  p.  561.) 


80 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


contestants  presented  to  tlie  said  arbitrators  the  carefully  prepared  statements  of  their 
respective  “cases.”* 

Mr.  Cooke,  in  his  “Statement  of  Facts  to  the  Arbitrators,”  gave  the  following  ac- 
count of  his  telegraphic  failure  in  February,  1837,  which  was  precisely  that  encoun- 
tered and  announced  by  Barlow,  some  dozen  years  before  : “ I employed  myself  in 

trying  experiments  upon  the  electro-magnet,  with  a view  to  discover  at  what  distance 
an  electric  current  would  excite  the  temporary  magnetism  required  for  moving  the 
detent  of  the  mechanism.  For  this  purpose  I adjusted  above  a mile  of  wire  in  the 
chambers  of  Mr.  Lane,  in  Lincoln’s  Inn;  but  the  magnets  and  battery  being  ill  proportioned, 
my  experiments  were  unsatisfactory.”!  The  cause  of  failure  stated,  evidently  repre- 
sents his  acquired  knowledge  in  1840,  not  that  in  1837.  It  was  the  singular  fatality 
of  electro-magnetism  confronting  every  early  experimenter  from  Barlow  downward, 
that  whether  the  number  of  cells  in  the  battery  were  increased,  or  whether  the  length 
of  wire. coiled  around  the  magnet  were  extended,  the  effect  upon  the  magnet  in  either 
case  rapidly  diminished  after  a certain  short  distance  of  circuit.  Who  then  would 
think  for  a moment  of  compounding  these  enfeebling  arrangements  ? 

In  the  desperate  emergency  which  seemed  to  impose  an  impassable  barrier  to  his  sig- 
nal device,  Mr.  Cooke  consulted  successively  three  among  the  most  eminent  of  British 
electricians:  Professor  Faraday,  Dr.  Roget,  and  Professor  Wheatstone.  The  following  is 
the  continuation  of  his  own  account,  from  the  “case”  already  quoted:  “In  this  scien- 
tific difficulty  I sought  the  assistance  of  Dr.  Faraday,  who  advised  me  to  increase  the 
number  of  the  plates  of  the  battery  proportionably  to  the  length  of  the  wires ; an 
expedient  which  in  some  degree  overcame  the  defect  of  the  magnet. t I also  con- 
sulted Dr.  Roget  upon  the  same  scientific  point.  . . . Dr.  Roget  informed  me  that 

Professor  Wheatstone  had  a quantity  of  wire  at  King’s  College,  which  might  assist 
me  in  trying  experiments  upon  the  electro-magnet,  and  he  advised  me  on  that  ac- 
count to  submit  my  difficulty  to  him.”  To  the  same  effect,  in  his  later  pamphlet  pub- 
lished in  March,  1856,  (more  than  fifteen  years  afterward,)  he  said:  “This  result  was 
to  be  accomplished  by  means  of  an  electro-magnet ; and  it  was  my  inability  to  make 
the  electro-magnet  act  at  long  distances  which  first  led  me  to  Mr.  Wheatstone.”  § 

At  this  point  it  is  proper  to  turn  to  Professor  Wheatstone’s  statement  of  the  inter- 
view, in  his  own  “ case,”  as  presented  to  the  arbitrators  at  the  same  time,  in  Decem- 
ber, 1840 : 

1 ‘ I believe  but  am  not  quite  sure  that  it  was  on  the  first  of  March,  1837,  that  Mr, 
Cooke  introduced  himself  to  me.  He  told  me  that  he  had  applied  to  Dr.  Faraday  and 
Dr.  Roget  for  some  information  relative  to  a subject  on  which  he  was  engaged,  and 
that  they  had  referred  him  to  me  as  having  the  means  of  answering  his  inquiries.  . . . 
Relying  on  my  former  experience,  I at  once  told  Mr.  Cooke  that  it  would  not  and  could 
not  act  as  a telegraph,  because  sufficient  attractive  power  could  not  be  imparted  to  an 
electro-magnet  interposed  in  a long  circuit ; and  to  convince  him  of  the  truth  of  this 
assertion,  I invited  him  to  King’s  College  to  see  the  repetition  of  the  experiments  on 
which  my  conclusion  was  founded.  He  came,  and  after  seeing  a variety  of  voltaic 

* These  documents,  with  the  “award”  rendered  April  27,  1841,  published  immedi- 
ately afterward,  were  some  years  later  republished  by  Mr.  Cooke  (together  with  sub- 
sequent controversial  pamphlets  between  the  parties)  in  two  octavo  volumes,  under 
the  common  title,  “The  Electric  Telegraph : was  it  invented  by  Professor  Wheatstone  ? ” 
One  volume,  published  in  1856,  comprising  the  “Arbitration  Papers”  in  full,  is  inju- 
diciously designated  “Part  II.”  The  other  volume,  published  in  1857,  embracing 
matter  of  a much  later  date,  is  improperly  designated  “Part  I.”  This  part  comprises 
a reprint  of  “Mr.  Cooke’s  First  Pamphlet,”  published  in  December,  1854;  of  “Mr. 
Wheatstone’s  Answer,”  published  in  January,  1856;  and  of  “Mr.  Cooke’s  Reply,” 
published  in  March,  1856. 

+ The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  ii,  sec.  46,  p.  24. 

t Faraday  in  his  brilliant  series  of  researches  commencing  in  September,  1831,  em- 
ployed almost  exclusively  Henry’s  “quantity”  magnet  of  numerous  short  coils  ; and 
hence  naturally  paid  little  attention  to  the  feebler  energies  of  Henry’s  “intensity” 
magnet. 

§ Work  above  quoted,  part  i,  pp.  198, 199. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


81 


magnets,  which  even  with  powerful  batteries  exhibited  only  slight  adhesive  attrac- 
tion, he  expressed  his  disappointment.”* “ When  I endeavored  to  ascertain  how  a 

bell  might  be  more  efficiently  rung,  the  attractive  power  obtained  by  temporarily 
magnetizing  soft  iron  first  suggested  itself  to  me.  The  experiments  I made  with  the 
long  • circuit  at  King’s  College  however  led  me  to  conclude  that  the  attraction  of  a 
piece  of  iron  by  an  electro-magnet  could  not  be  made  available  in  circuits  of  very 
great  length,  and  therefore  I had  no  hopes  of  being  able  to  discharge  an  alarum  by 
this  means.”! 

Not  a little  surprising  is  it  that  three  Savans  so  distinguished,  all  of  them  familiar 
in  a general  way  with  Henry’s  electro -magnetic  researches  published  more  than  six 
years  before,  should  each  have  failed  to  apprehend,  or  should  have  forgotten,  the  dis- 
tinctly declared  virtue  of  his  “intensity  ” magnet.  1 Henry,  in  1829,  and  1830,  had  fully 
demonstrated  that  while  with  a single  galvanic  pair  a small  magnet  surrounded  with 
a long  wire  showed  ve»y  feeble  magnetism  (as  compared  with  one  of  short  coil),  with 
a “trough”  battery  of  many  pairs  it  exerted  a stronger  attraction  after  the  current 
had  passed  through  1,060  feet  of  wire  in  the  circuit  than  when  the  coil  was  directly 
connected  with  the  battery.  He  had  announced:  “ From  these  experiments  it  is  evi- 
dent that  in  forming  the  coil  we  may  either  use  one  very  long  wire  or  several  shorter 
ones,  as  the  circumstances  may  require ; in  the  first  case  our  galvanic  combination 
must  consist  of  a numbei'  of  plates,  in  the  secondit  must  be  formed  of  a single  pair.”  And  he 
had  expressly  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  former  arrangement  “is  directly 
applicable  to  the  project  of  forming  an  electro -magnetic  telegraph.”  § 

Mr.  Cooke  continued  the  narrative  in  his  “case”  as  follows:  “On  many  occasions 
during  the  months  of  March  and  April,  1837,  we  tried  experiments  together  upon  the 
electro-magnet ; our  object  being  to  make  it  act  efficiently  at  long  distances  in  its 
office  of  removing  the  detent.  The  result  of  our  experiments  confirmed  my  apprehen- 
sion that  I was  still  without  the  power  of  exciting  magnetism  at  long  distances.  . . 

. In  this  difficulty  we  adopted  the  expedient  of  a secondary  circuit,  which  was  used 
for  some  time  in  connection  with  my  alarum.”  || 

It  is  at  this  period  that  Henry  made  his  first  visit  to  England ; and  in  London  he 
formed  an  acquaintance  with  Faraday,  with  Roget,  and  with  Wheatstone,  with  each 
of  whom  he  had  many  pleasant  and  familiar  interviews,  and  for  each  of  whom  he  ever 
Bntertained  a warm  personal  regard.  He  has  left  the  following  account  of  his  colnmu- 
uication  with  the  professor  last  named : 

“In  February,  1837,  I went  to  Europe;  and  early  in  April  of  that  year,  Professor 
Wheatstone,  of  London,  (in  the  course  of  a visit  by  myself  to  him  in  King’s  College, 
London,  with  Professor  Bache,  now  of  the  Coast  Survey,)  explained  to  ns  his  plans  of  an 
electro-magnetic  telegraph ; and  among  other  things  exhibited  to  us  his  method  of 
bringing  into  action  a second  galvanic  circuit.  This  consisted  in  closing  the  second 
jircuit  by  the  deflection  of  a needle  so  placed  that  the  two  upward  projecting  ends  of 
the  open  circuit  would  be  united  by  the  contact  of  the  end  of  the  needle  when  de- 
lected ; and  on  opening  or  breaking  the  circuit  so  closed,  by  opening  the  first  circuit 
and  thus  interrupting  the  current,  the  needle  would  resume  its  ordinary  position 
mder  the  influence  of  the  magnetism  of  the  earth.  I informed  him  that  I had 
levised  another  method  of  producing  effects  somewhat  similar.  This  consisted  in 

* [“  Electro-magnets  of  the  greatest  power,  even  when  the  most  energetic  batteries 
are  employed,  utterly  cease  to  act  when  they  are  connected  by  considerable  lengths  of 
tv  ire  with  the  battery.”  ( Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Chemical  Ph  ilosophy : by  Prof.  John 
Frederick  Daniell,  2d  ed.  1843,  chap,  xvi,  sec.  859,  p.  576.)] 

t The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  ii,  sects.  268,  272,  and  299,  pp.  86 
17,  and  93. 

t Faraday  refers  to  Hetiry’s  magnets  in  his  Experimental  Researches,  etc.  (Nov.  24 
.831),  vol.  i,  art.  57,  p.  15  ; and  Roget  refers  to  them  in  his  excellent  Treatise  on  Electro- 
magnetism, 8vo.  London,  1832,  chap,  x,  sec.  161,  p.  55. 

$ Silliman’s  American  Journal  of  Science,  January,  1831,  vol.  xix,  p.  404. 

||  The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  ii,  sec.  51,  p.  27. 

6 E T 


82 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


opening  tlie  circuit  of  my  large  quantity  magnet  at  Princeton,  when  loaded  with  many 
hundred  pounds  weight,  hy  attracting  upward  a small  piece  of  movable  wire  with  a 
small  intensity  magnet  connected  with  a long  wire  circuit.  When  the  circuit  of  the 
large  battery  was  thus  broken  by  an  action  from  a distance  the  weights  would  fall  ; 
and  great  mechanical  effect  could  thus  be  produced,  such  as  the  ringing  of  church-bells 
at  a distance  of  a hundred  miles  or  more, — an  illustration  of  which  I had  previously 
given  to  my  class  at  Princeton.  . . . The  object  of  Professor  Wheatstone  as  I un- 

derstood it,  in  bringing  into  action  a second  circuit,  was  to  provide  a remedy  for  the 
diminution  of  force  in  a long  circuit.  My  object  in  the  process  described  by  me  was 
to  bring  into  operation  a large  quantity  magnet  connected  with  a quantity  battery  in 
a local  circuit,  by  means  of  a small  intensity  magnet  and  an  intensity  battery  at  a 
distance.”  * 

This  important  historic  interchange  of  experiments  and  projects  between  Henry  and 
Wheatstone,  possesses  an  interest  and  a significance  quite  beyond  that  present  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  writer.  To  Henry,  the  confidence  imparted  was  striking  only  from 
the  coincidence  of  separate  inventions  in  the  combination  or  conjunction  of  two 
circuits  ; in  his  own  case  by  the  agency  of  an  “ intensity”  magnet  at  a distance,  in  the 
other  case  by  the  agency  of  a galvanometer  needle  at  a distance,  t But  to  Wheatstone} 
how  different  must  have  been  the  impression  and  suggestion!  From  the  simple  account 
of  Henry’s  contrasted  “intensity”  and  “ quantity  ” magnets ; of  his  telegraphic  ex- 
periment in  1831, — the  magnetic  tapping  of  a bell  through  more  than  a mile  of  fine  cop- 
per wire;  of  his  daring  faith  in  being  able  to  ring  heavy  bells  by  a terminal  “quan- 
tity” magnet,  “at  a distance  of  a hundred  miles  or  more!”  with  what  new  interest  and 
meaning  must  the  earlier  and  neglected  researches  of  Henry  have  been  recalled.  Who 
could  doubt  that  with  the  unsolved  problem  of  Mr.  Cooke  just  fresh  before  him,  with 
his  active  and  fertile  mind  awakened,  quick  to  seize  upon  and  develop  a new  idea, 
(as  well  illustrated  in  his  intercourse  with  Mr.  Cooke,)  who  could  doubt  that  the  pre- 
sentation above  recorded  (in  April  of  1837,)  must  have  been  to  him  a new  solution  and 
a sudden  revelation  ? 

Surely  some  recognition  of  Henry’s  published  researches  was  to  be  looked  for  in  return 
for  the  unexpected  but  unquestionable  benefit  conferred.  We  search  in  vain  for  any 
such  requital  or  acknowledgment.  In  amplifying  his  own  “ improvements  ” before  the 
arbitrators,  he  says:  “But  the  most  important  point  of  all  was  my  application  of  the  the- 
ory of  Ohm  to  telegraphic  circuits,  which  enabled  me  to  ascertain  the  best  proportions 
between  the  length,  thickness,  &c.,  of  the  multiplying  coils  and  the  other  resistances  in 
the  circuit,  and  to  determine  the  number  and  size  of  the  elements  of  the  battery  to  pro- 
duce the  maximum  effect.  With  this  law  and  its  applications,  no  persons  who  had  before 
occupied  themselves  with  experiments  relating  to  Electric  Telegraphs  had  been  acquainted” /+ 
The  “theory  of  Ohm”  (announced  in  1827),  had  avowedly  no  influence  whatever  on 
Wheatstone’s  researches — till  after  his  interview  with  Henry,  in  April,  1837  ; nor  was 
the  “theory  of  Ohrn”  any  more  definitely  applied,  or  any  more  implicitly  confirmed, 
by  the  later  English  experimenter  in  1837,  than  it  had  been  by  the  earlier  American 
experimenter  in  1829,  aud  1830.  And  Professor  Wheatstone’s  explicit  declarations  that 
in  March , 1837,  he  found  by  experience  that  “sufficient  attractive  power  could  not  be 

* Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  Ill,  11*2.  As  Prof.  Alexander  Dallas  Bache  was 
present  on  the  occasion  above  mentioned,  and  as  he  was  also  subsequently  a Regent 
of  the  Institution,  under  whose  direct  supervision  and  authority  the  above  statement 
of  Henry  was  published  by  the  board,  it  may  be  regarded  as  .having  his  implicit 
corroboration. 

t Professor  Wheatstone,  in  his  “Answer”  to  Mr.  Cooke’s  Pamphlet,  says:  “My  ex- 
periments led  me  to  believe  that  the  motions  of  a needle  could  be  produced  at  dis- 
tances at  which  no  effects  of  electro-magnetic  attraction  cou^d  be  obtained.”  (Letter 
of  October  26,  1840;  reprint,  p,  114.) 

t “Professor  Wheatstone’s  Case.”  The  Electric  Telegraph , etc.  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part 
ii,  sect.  290,  p.  91. 


HENRY  AND  .THE  TELEGRAPH. 


83 

t 

imparted  to  an  electro-magnet  interposed  in  a long  circuit ,” — tliat  “tlie  attraction  of  a 
piece  of  iron  by  an  electro-magnet  conld  not  be  made  available  in  circuits  of  very 
great  length,"  excludes  absolutely  and  forever,  all  possibility  of  competitive  claim  to 
a discovery  admittedly  “the  most  important  point  of  all”  in  the  practical  develop- 
ment of  a real  telegraph; — the . discovery  of  the  “ intensity ” magnet.  Undoubtedly  re- 
quired to  institute  especial  experiments  in  order  to  properly  proportion  his  magnet 
and  battery,  Wheatstone  was  led  by  self-esteem  to  entirely  overestimate  the  original- 
ity of  such  experiments,  and  correspondingly  to  underrate  the  value  of  Henry’s  in- 
structions or  suggestions. 

Recurring  to  his  plan  of  a terminal  secondary  circuit  Professor  Wheatstone  re-iter- 
ates  in  the  same  document : “ Having  convinced  myself  that  it  was  hopeless  to  expect 
to  ring  an  alarum  by  the  direct  action  of  the  electric  current  through  a circuit  of 
great  length  on  an  electro-magnet  as  ordinarily  constructed,  I began  to  think  whether 
the  effect  required  might  not  be  produced  in  an  indirect  manner.  It  occurred  to  me 
that  the  difficulty  would  be  overcome  if  a short  circuit  in  which  the  electro-magnet  of 
the  alarum  and  a rather  powerful  electro-motor  should  be  interposed,  could  be  com 
pleted  and  broken  at  will  by  some  action  governed  by  the  current  in  the  long  circuit. 

. . . These  methods  of  completing  the  secondary  circuit  have  lost  all  their  impor- 

tance and  are  scarcely  worth  contending  about,  since  jny  discovery  that  electro-magnets 
may  be  so  constructed  as  to  produce  the  required  effects  by  means  of  the  direct  cur- 
rent, even  in  very  long  circuits.” 

Again  returning  to  this  fatal  theme,  he  repeats  (having  resolved  to  “carry  out  his 
investigations  alone”  without  the  co-operation  of  Mr.  Cooke),  “After  this  resolution 
had  been  taken,  I commenced  a series  of  researches  on  the  laws  of  electro-magnets , and 
was  fortunate  enough  to  discover  the  conditions  ( which  had  not  hitherto  been  made  the 
subject  of  philosophical  inquiry)  by  which  effects  could  be  produced  at  great  distances. 
This  rendered  electro-magnetic  attraction  for  the  first  time  applicable  in  an  imme- 
diate manner  to  telegraphic  purposes.”* — Notwithstanding  that  Henry,  in  1830, 
had  demonstrated — and  on  the  first  of  January,  1831,  had  confidently  announced  to 
the  scientific  world,  that  his  own  original  “intensity”  magnet  with  a “trough” 
battery,  was  “directly  applicable  to  the  project  of  forming  an  electro-magnetic  tele- 
, graph  ” ! 

This  redundant  iteration  of  original  discovery,  this  reticence^  as  to  any  similar 
investigation  known  to  have  been  even  attempted  by  Henry,  scarcely  permits  the 
charitable  suggestion  of  “ unconsciousness.”  That  his  persistent  claim  should  have 
misled  his  colleague,  Professor  Daniell,  into  incorporating  in  the  text  of  his  new 
edition  of  the  “Chemical  Philosophy”  the  following  laudation,  is  perhaps  not  alto- 
gether to  be  wondered  at:  “Ingenious  as  Professor  Wheatstone’s  contrivances  are, 
they  would  have  been  of  no  avail  for  telegraphic  purposes  without  the  investigation 
( which  he  was  the  first  to  make ) of  the  laws  of  electro-magnets  when  acted  on  through 
great  lengths  of  wire.”!  Were  the  name  of  Henry  inserted  in  the  italicised  paren- 
thesis, the  proposition  stated  would  be  beyond  the  reach  of  cavil  or  exception.  In- 
genious as  Professor  Wheatstone’s  contrivances  were,  they  would  have  been  of  no  avail 
for  telegraphic  purposes,  without  the  investigation  (which  Henry  was  the  first 
to  make)— of  the  laws  of  electro-magnets  when  acted  on  through  great  lengths  of 
wire. 

Mr.  Cooke  (to  whom  probably  even  the  existence  of  Henry  was  unknown)  makes 
the  very  expressive  comment  on  the  above  passage  from  the  “ Chemical  Philosophy” 
of  the  professor  at  King’s  College : “ Mr.  Daniell  might  have  added  that  this  investi- 


* “Professor  Wheatstone’s  Case,”  as  above  cited,  sect.  306,  314,  and  333,  pp.  94,96, 
and  100. 

t Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Chemical  Philosophy,  second  edition,  1843,  chap,  xvi, 
keect.  859,  p.  576. 


84 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Ration  had  not  been  commenced  or  thought  of  in  March,  1837  ! ” * In  this  pamphlet 
controversy  which  occurred  between  the  joint-patentees  some  fourteen  years  after  the 
memorable  “award,”  Professor  Wheatstone  in  his  “Answer”  (of  January,  1856,)  to 
Mr.  Cooke’s  first  pamphlet  (of  December,  1854,)  somewhat  more  feebly  re-echoes: 
“With  this  law  and  its  applications  no  persons  in  England  who  had  before  occupied 
themselves  with  experiments  relating  to  electric  telegraphs  had  been  acquainted.”! 

The  substance  of  the  “award”  rendered  by  the  distinguished  arbitrators  April  27, 
1841,  in  the  matter  of  the  Cooke  and  Wheatstone  controversy,  was  that  “Mr.  Cooke 
is  entitled  to  stand  alone  as  the  gentleman  to  whom  this  country  is  indebted  for  haying 
practically  introduced  and  carried  out  the  electric  telegraph  as  a useful  undertaking, 
promising  to  be  a work  of  national  importance:  and  Professor  Wheatstone  is  ac- 
knowledged as  the  scientific  man  whose  profound  and  successful  researches  have 
already  prepared  the  public  to  receive  it  as  a project  capable  of  practical  application.”! 
This  decision — studiously  non-committal  as  is  its  language,  and  even  as  interpreted 
by  the  extra-judicial  letter  of  Professor  Daniell,  dated  March  24,  1843,  (two  years  sub- 
sequently,) cannot  be  regarded  as  sustaining  the  prominent  theory  of  “Professor 
Wheatstone’s  Case,”  assuming  priority  of  suggestion  or  of  application  of  the  needle 
telegraph,  as  compared  with  Mr.  Cooke. 

NOTE  G.  (From  p.  48.) 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  “MORSE  ALPHABET.” 

It  appears  from  various  concurring  testimonies,  that  the  new  recording  instrument 
constructed  for  Professor  Morse  by  Mr.  Yail  during  October,  November,  and  Decem- 
ber, 1837,  was  entirely  of  his  own  design,  without  any  suggestions  from  Professor 
Morse ; and  that  its  arrangement  for  discontinuous  marking  was  specially  contrived 
by  its  maker  for  an  alphabet  exclusively  devised  by  himself;  which  he  abstained 
from  publicly  claiming,  owing  to  a delicate  sense  of  obligation  incurred  by  his  con- 
tract with  Professor  Morse,  to  render  him  every  assistance  in  perfecting  the  mechan- 
ical arrangements  of  the  telegraph.  § 

That  Professor  Morse  had  no  conception  on  the  3d  of  October,  1837,  of  the  form  of 
nstrument  contemplated  by  Mr.  Yail,  is  clearly  shown  by  his  autographic  “ caveat” 
of  that  date.  And  his  letter  to  Mr.  Yail,  of  October  24th,  announcing  the  completion 
of  the  numbered  dictionary,  (in ’which  he  wrote  “we  can  now  talk  or  write  anything 
by  numbers,”)  is  equally  conclusive  evidence  that  at  this  later  date,  he  was  still 
unconscious  of  any  alphabetic  improvement. 

An  article  in  the  New  York  Sun,  by  its  editor,  Mr.  Moses  S.  Beach,  (written  in  1858,) 
under  the  heading  “Plonor  to  whom  honor  is  due,”  makes  the  statement,  “We  will 
mention  a few  incidents  connected  with  Professor  Morse’s  own  experience,  which  we 
have  never  seen  in  print,  and  which  lose  none  of  their  interest  from  the  unassuming 
modesty  of  the  parties  referred  to.”  And  after  alluding  to  the  assistance  furnished 

* Mr.  Cooke’s  ‘ 1 Reply  ” to  Professor  Wheatstone’s  1 ‘Answer.”  ( The  Electric  Telegraph, 
etc.  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  i,  p.  199.)  Dr.  John  Locke,  of  Cincinnati,  who  was  in  Lon- 
don in  the  summer  of  1837,  on  his  return  to  this  country,  having  informed  Professor 
Morse  of  Wheatstone’s  telegraphic  experiments,  Professor  Morse  in  a letter  from  New 
York  to  Alfred  Yail,  at  Speedwell,  dated  October  24,  1837,  thus  referred  to  the  matter : 
“We  have  just  heard  that  Professor  Wheatstone  has  tried  an  experiment  with  his 
method,  twenty  miles,  with  success.  We  have  therefore  nothing  to  fear.”  (Prime’s 
Life  of  Morse,  chap,  viii,  p.  326.)  At  this  date  Professor  Gale  had  operated  the  Morse 
instrument  through  only  three  miles  of  wire  in  the  circuit. 

t The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.,  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  i,  p.  57. 

+ The  Electric  Telegraph,  etc.,  by  W.  F.  Cooke,  part  i,  p.  16:  and  part  ii,  pp.  214  and 
268. 

§By  the  terms  of  the  partnership  in  the  telegraph,  Mr.  Vail  agreed  “to  devote  his 
personal  services  and  skill  in  constructing  and  bringing  to  perfection,  as  also  in  im- 
proving, the  mechanical  parts  of  said  invention,  . . . without  charge  for  such 

personal  services  to  the  oilier  proprietors,  and  for  their  common  benefit.” 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


85 


the  inventor  in  his  early  imperfect  experiments  by  tbe  Messrs.  Yail,  tlie  editor  con- 
tinues: “Alfred  Yail  entered  into  these  experiments  with  his  whole  soul,  and  to  him 
is  Professor  Morse  indebted,  quite  as  much  as  to  his  own  wit,  for  his  ultimate 
triumph.  He  it  ivas  who  invented  the  far-famed  alphabet ; and  he  too  was  the  inventor 
of  the  instrument  which  bears  Morse’s  name.  But  whatever  he  did  or  contrived, 
went  cheerfully  to  the  great  end.  Alfred  felt  rewarded  in  seeing  the  gradual  ac- 
complishment of  the  dream.  ”* 

In  an  interesting  article  entitled  “The  first  week  of  the  Telegraph,”  written  in 
I860  for  a New  .York  monthly  magazine,  by  Dr.  William  P.  Yail,  the  following  sig- 
nificant allusion  to  his  deceased  nephew,  Mr.  Alfred  Yail,  occurs:  “The  birth-time 
and  the  birth-place  of  the  telegraph  as  a recording  instrument  of  intelligence,  . . . 

the  parties  who  wrought  the  rude  original  plan  into  working  order  and  gave  it  effi- 
ciency, the  man  who  invented  the  1 Morse  alphabet ’ (so  called),  and  to  whose  ingenuity, 
mechanical  skill,  and  tireless  perseverance,  the  clock-work  of  the  telegraph  machine 
is  largely  due,  ...  all  this  is  well  understood,  and  for  the  most  part  is  written 
down,  and  the  record  some  day  in  the  near  future  must  find  its  place  in  history,  upon 
the  true  principle  of  sumn  caique.”  t 

It  is  noteworthy  that  neither  the  published  statement  made  by  the  editor  of  the 
“ Sun,”  nor  that  made  by  Mr.  Yail’s  uncle  in  the  “ Hours  at  Home,”  (both  widely  cir- 
culated, and  copied  into  other  journals  during  Professor  Morse’s  life-time,)  was  ever 
called  in  question  by  the  celebrated  telegrapher.  His  painful  silence  under  the  cir- 
cumstances is  not  easily  defensible. 

Mr.  Francis  O.  J.  Smith,  one  of  the  partners  in  the  original  telegraph  patent  of 
Morse,  (having  had  as  capitalist  and  business  manager,  a one-fourth  interest  in  the 
enterprise,)  has  also  stated  in  a published  letter,  dated  March  30,  1872,  (not  long  be- 
fore Professor  Morse’s  death,)  that  the  modified  horizontal  lever  adapted  “to  emboss 
the  alphabetic  characters,”  was  “ neither  invented  nor  combined  in  the  telegraph  by 
Professor  Morse,  but  exclusively  by  our  associate — Mr.  Alfred  Yail;  although  for 
reasons  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  inost»minds,  they  were  never  publicly  credited  to 
lim,  but  have  been  claimed  exclusively  by  Professor  Morse  as  his  own  invented  com- 
bination. ”t 

Dr.  Gale,  the  only  surviving  member  of  the  original  partnership,  states  in  a recent 
fetter  on  the  subject,  that  he  does  not  distinctly  remember  whether  the  changed  ar- 
rangement of  the  lever  to  a horizontal  position  in  the  new  model  constructed  by  Mr. 
Vail,  was  his  exclusive  invention  or  not. 

In  a biographical  sketch  of  Alfred  Yail  by  Mr.  Frederick  Brent  Read,  of  Cincinnati, 
published  in  1«873,  the  writer  states  without  qualification:  “Alfred  Yail  first  pro- 
iuced  in  the  new  instrument  the  first  available  Morse  machine.  He  invented  the  first 
:ombination  of  the  horizontal  lever  motion  to  actuate  a pen  or  pencil  or  style,  and  the 
mtirely  new  telegraphic  alphabet  of  dots,  spaces,  and  marks,  which  it  necessitated ; 
md  he  did  so  prior, to  September,  1837,  the  month  when  the  old  instrument  passed  into 
lis  hands  for  reconstruction.  . . . The  new  machine  was  Yail’s,  not  Morse’s. 

* New  York  Sun,  for  September  25,  1858.  Republished  in  the  Weekly  Sun,  for  Octo- 
>er  2,  1858.  In  a recent  letter  on  the  subject,  Mr.  M.  S.  Beach,  the  author  of  the 
tbove,  states : “I  was  then  personally  acquainted  with  the  Yails,  and  a not  unfrequent 
fisitor  at  the  homestead  in  Morristown:  besides  of  course  having  a personal  ac- 
[uaintance  with  Professor  Morse,  and  with  the  telegraph  managers  generally.  My  im- 
pression is  that  the  article  was  at  the  time  approved  for  its  exact  statement — never 
controverted.” 

t Scribner’s  Hours  at  Home , September,  1889,  vol.  ix,  pp.  435,  436.  In  response  to 
n inquiry  as  to  the  evidence  of  Mr.  A.  Yail’s  invention  of  the  “dot-and-dash”  alpha- 
bet, Dr.  \V.  P.  Yail,  the  author  of  the  above,  declares  in  a recent  letter,  “It  was  so 
mderstood  by  all  who  were  admitted  to  his  intimacy.  In  a conversation  with  him 
hortly  before  his  death,  in  1859,  he  so  assured  me.  I am  not  aware  that  Mr.  Morse 
>ver  set  up  an  adverse  claim.” 

tA  pamphlet  entitled  “ History  Getting  Eight  on  the  invention  of  the  American 
Electro-magnetic  Telegraph.”  1872,  'p.  21.  It  does  not  appear  that  Professor  Morse 
ver  did  explicitly  claim  these  inventions  as  his  own. 


8 G 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


Tlie  claim  is  clearly  made  then,  that  Alfred  Vail  in  the  first  place  invented  an  entirely 
new  alphabet;  secondly,  he  invented  an  entirely  new  machine  in  which  was  the  first 
combination  of  the  horizontal  lever  motion  to  actuate  a pen  or  pencil  or  style,  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  perform  the  new  duties  required  with  precision,  simplicity,  and  rapidity  \ 
and  thirdly,  Vail  invented,  several  years  afterward  [in  1844],  the  new  lever  and 
[grooved]  roller  which  embossed  into  paper  the  wholly  simple  and  perfect  alphabetic 
characters  which  lie  alone  originated.”* 

Numerous  experiments  with  various  kinds  of  pencils,  fountain-pens,  and  inked 
roulettes,  having  shown  their  inefficiency  for  the  uniform  marking  of  the  “ dot-and- 
dash”  alphabet,  Alfred  Vail  at  last  boldly  discarded  all  marking  devices,  and  em- 
ployed a blunt  steel  point  near  the  end  of  the  registering  lever,  playing  directly  over 
a narrow  groove  in  the  roller  which  supported  the  record-fillet  of  paper.  In  this  man- 
ner the  variable  lines  of  the  Vail  alphabet  were  permanently  indented  in  the  paper,, 
with  perfect  facility  and  unerring  regularity.  Mr.  F.  B.  Read  in  his  biographical 
sketch  of  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse  (in  the  work  just  quoted),  after  alluding  t o his  original 
apparatus  as  being  placed  by  him  11  in  Mr.  Vail’s  hands  for  an  entire  mechanical  recon- 
struction throughout,  to  speak  a language  not  only  wholly  unknown  to  the  first  ma- 
chine, but  to  perform  entirely  new  functions,  and  to  produce  an  entirely  new  system  of 
signs  and  letters  which  the  first  by  its  structure  was  physically  incapable  of  being  made 
to  speak adds  with  regard  to  Mr.  Vail’s  subsequent  improvement,  “ His  more  perfect 
invention  of  a steel  style  upon  a lever  which  could  strike  into  the  paper  as  it  was 
drawn  onward  over  a grooved  roller  and  emboss  upon  it  the  same  alphabetic  characters, 
was  not  made  until  18il,  about  the  time  the  first  line  of  telegraph  began  to  operate 
between  Baltimore  and  Washington.”! 

Simple  as  may  appear  the  substitution  of  the  dry  point  for  the  inked  wheel  or  pen,, 
its  introduction  effected  a wonderful  saving  of  time,  of  attention,  and  of  annoyance. 
In  a memorandum  attached  to  the  original  model  of  the  lever-style  and  grooved  roller, 
Alfred  Vail  wrote,  “ I have  not  asserted  publicly  my  right  as  first  and  sole  inventor, 
because  I wished  to  preserve  the  peaceful  unity  of  the  invention,  and  because  I could 
not  according  to  my  contract  with  Professor  Morse,  have  got  a patent  for  it.”! 

Mr.  Read,  in  the  same  biography  of  Morse,  after  quoting  his  feeble  and  insufficient 
Iribute  to  Vail,  in  his  speech  at  the  banquet  given  at  New  York  on  the  evening  of 
December  29,  1868,  in  honor  of  the  “ successful”  inventor,  (in  which  he  said  of  his 
intellectual  offspring,  “It  found  a friend  in  Mr.  Alfred  Vail,  of  New  Jersey,  who  with 
his  father  and  brother  furnished  the  means  to  give  the  child  a decent  dress ;”)  makes 
the  comment,  “It  would  have  been  more  magnanimous  if  in  those  last  days  of  the 
aged  savant  he  had  stated  the  precise  facts,  and  given  Alfred  Vail  the  full  credit  to 
which  he  was  justly  entitled.  He  would  thus  have  generously  raised  a fitting  rnonu- 
to  the  memory  of  one  who  had  years  before  ‘ been  gathered  to  his  fathers’  in  the  prime 
of  manhood,  who  had  with  wondrous  modesty  and  singular  reticence  refrained  from 
claiming  as  of  his  own  invention,  the  improved  ‘Morse’  instrument  .and  alphabet.”^ 

In  again  referring  to  this  subject  in  his  following  sketch  of  the  life  of  Vail,  the 
author  adds,  “ These  are  the  quiet  and  subdued  terms  in  which  Professor  Morse  was 
content  to  hand  his  co-inventor  and  early  friend  down  to  posterity.  He  makes  no 
allusion  to  Alfred  Vail  which  would  lead  any  one  to  suspect  that  he  was  anything 
more  than  a skillful  mechanic; — that  Vail  had  ever  done  anything  beyond  putting 
into  form  the  conception  of  Morse’s  brain.  To  say  the  least,  it  was  an  unhappy  hold- 
ing off  from  a magnanimous  and  generous  course.”|| 

*A  collection  of  biographical  notices,  entitled  Up  the  Heights  of  Fame  and  Fortune , 
by  F.  B.  Read,  8vo.  Cincinnati,  1873,  pp.  270,  271.  Thirty-four  pages  are  devoted  to  an 
account  of  the  life  of  Alfred  Vail;  who  died  at  Morristown,  January  18,  1859. 

t Up  the  Heights  of  Fame  a id  Fortune , pp.  244,  245. 

$ Quoted  in  same  work : p.  291.  § Same  work  : p.  244. 

||  Same  work:  p.  297.  A friend  of  Mr.  Vail,  (unnamed,)  who  visited  Professor 
Morse  at  his  request  during  his  last  illness  in  March,  1872,  is  reported  as  stating,  “ In 


HENRY  AND  TIIE  TELEGRAPH. 


87 


At  a meeting-  of  the  Directors  of  the  “Magnetic  Telegraph  Company  ” held  at  Phila- 
delphia on  the  16th  of  February,  1859,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  expression  to  their 
feelings  on  the  recent  death  of  Alfred  Yail  (a  brother  Director),  Amos  Kendall  in 
seconding  and  warmly  supporting  the  offered  resolutions  of  respect  and  grief,  is  thus 
reported:  “ In  the  words  of  the  distinguished  associate  and  friend  of  both,  the  Hon. 
Amos  Kendall,  ‘If  justice  be  done,  the  name  of  Alfred  Vail  will  forever  stand  associated 
with  that  of  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  in  the  history  of  the  invention  and  introduction  into 
public  use,  of  the  Electro-magnetic  Telegraph.  . . . Mr.  Vail  was  one  of  the  most 

honest  and  scrupulously  conscientious  men  with  whom  it  has  ever  been  my  fortune  to 
meet.’  ”* 

Surely  it  is  time  that  Alfred  Vail  should  receive  the  tardy  justice  of  some  public 
acknowledgment  of  his  very  ingenious  and  meritorious  inventions  in  telegraphy,  and 
of  grateful  remembrance  particularly  for  his  valuable  contribution  to  the  “Morse 
system”  of  its  practically  most  important  element. 

NOTE  H.  (From  p.  60.) 

. AN  UNWARRANTED  ARRAIGNMENT. 

Henry,  elected  December  3,  1846,  to  the  position  of  “Secretary”  and  Director 
jf  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  was  for  ten  years  engaged  in  a difficult  but  resolute 
draggle  to  impress  upon  its  administration  his  own  sagacious  and  far-sighted  pol- 
icy ; at  that  time  but  little  appreciated  by  the  vast  majority  of  those  who  wielded 
political  or  literary  influence.  It  was  during  the  latter  portion  of  this  critical  period, 
while  still  almost  entirely  abstracted  from  his  favorite  pursuits,  that  he  was  made  the 
subject  of  a most  wanton,  unprovoked,  and  unlooked-for  aspersion.  In  this  ill-advised 
attack— elaborately  prepared  either  by  or  for  Professor  Morse,  more  than  a year  before 
its  wide-spread  publication,  t the  pamphleteer  not  only  boldly  assailed  the  scien- 
tific reputation  of  the  great  experimental  physicist,  but  ventured  (for  the  first 
time  in  the  latter’s  career)  to  impugn  his  truthfulness,  in  an  important  testimony 
|iven  in  certain  telegraph  suits,  some  half  a dozen  years  previously,  in  reluctant 
obedience  to  legal  summons.!  This  testimony  thus  exacted,  of  course  failed  to 
iustaintliecomplainant’s.exorbitant  claims  to  all  possible  forms  of  the  electro-magnetic 
(telegraph,  and  correspondingly  failed  to  satisfy  the  cupidity  of  the  actual  prosecutors ; 
md  in  this  remarkable  accusation,  first  published  in  1855,  could  readily  be  discerned 
he  mercenary  inspiration  of  interested  capitalists  and  assignees— anxious  only  to 
itretch  the  monopoly  to  its  extremest  grasp.  To  Professor  Morse  himself,  in  his  early 
dforts,  Henry  had  generously  rendered  every  encouragement  and  assistance;  and  in 

l conversation  of  two  hours,  he  several  times  said,  ‘The  one  thing  I want  to  do  now,  is 
ustice  to  Mr.  Vail.’  .*  . . Just  four  weeks  from  that  day,  he  passed  from  earth; 

md  I have  never  heard  that  he  left  one  word  for  it.  Indeed,  I did  not  expect  that  he 
would.”  To  this  statement,  Mr.  Read  adds,  “Here  we  leave  Professor  Morse  and  his 
-elations  to  Alfred  Vail.  Our  only  purpose  has  been  simply  to  bring  the  facts  concern  - 
ng  this  wonderful  invention,  to  the  light  of  day.  (Same  page  of  the  work : — p.  297. ) 

* Same  work : p.  296. 

t Professor  Morse’s  signature  upon  the  last  page  of  the  Impeachment  (p.  98),  is 
lated  December,  1853.  The  pamphlet  was  published  January,  1855. 

+ The  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  while  Governor  of  Ohio,  (subsequently  Chief  Justice  of  the 
supreme  Cpurt  of  the  United  States,)  in  a letter  to  Henry,  dated  Columbus,  November 
56,  1856,  after  reciting  his  professional  connection  with  the  litigations  of  1849,  says  : 

‘ I remember  very  well  that  you  were  unwilling  to  be  involved  in  the  controversy 
iven  as  a witness,  and  that  you  only  submitted  to  be  examined  in  compliance  with 
he  requirements  of  law.  Not  one  of  your  statements  was  volunteered;  they  were 
<11  called  out  by  questions  propounded  either  verbally  or  in  writing.  . . . You 

ould  not  have  refused  to  respond  to  the  questions  propounded  without  subjecting 
■ourself  to  judicial  animadversion  and  constraint.  Nothing  in  what  you  testified,  or 
rour  manner  of  testifying,  suggested  to  me  the  idea  that  you  were  animated  by  any 
esire  to  arrogate  undue  merit  to  yourself,  or  to  detract  from  the  just  claims  of  Pro- 
fessor Morse.  ’ 


88 


HENRY  AND  T1IE  TELEGRAPH. 


his  later  successes  had  as  freely  extended  his  congratulations  and  his  testimonials  of 
the  practical  merits  of  his  invention.* 

To  descend  to  a personal  controversy  with  Mr.  Morse,  was  utterly  repugnant  to 
Henry’s  feelings ; to  permit  his  serious  impeachment  to  stand  untraversed,  appeared 
scarcely  less  objectionable.  ^ With  a calm  and  self-respecting,  dignity,  Henry  simply 
presented  the  published  arraignment  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  for  their  consideration 
and  action,  with  a communication  dated  March  16,  1857,  in  the  following  terms: 

“Gentlemen : In  the  discharge  of  the  important  and  responsible  duties  which  de- 
volve upon  me  as  Secretary  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  I have  found  myself  exposed, 
like  other  men  in  public  positions,  to  unprovoked  attack  and  injurious  misrepresenta- 
tion. Many  instances  of  this  it  may  be  remembered  occurred  about  two  years  ago, 
during  the  discussions  relative  to  the  organic  policy  of  the  Institution ; but  though 
very  unjust,  they  were  suffered  to  pass  unnoticed,  and  generally  made  I presume  no 
lasting  impression  on  the  public  mind.  During  the  same  controversy  however  there 
was  one  attack  made  upon  me  of  such  a nature,  so  elaborately  prepared  and  widely 
circulated  by  my  opponents,  that  though  I have  not  yet  publicly  noticed  it,  I have 
from  the  first  thought  it  my  duty  not  to  allow  it  to  go  unanswered.  I allude  to  an 
article  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  S.  F.  B.  Morse,  the  celebrated  inventor  of.  the  American 
electro-magnetic  telegraph.  In  this,  not  my  scientific  reputation  merely,  but  my  moral 
character  was  pointedly  assailed  ; indeed,  nothing  less  was  attempted  than  to  prove 
that  in  the  testimony  which  I had  given  in  a case  where  I was  at  most  but  a reluctant 
witness,  I had  consciously  and  willfully  deviated  from  the  truth,  and  this  too  from 
unworthy  and  dishonorable  motives. 

“Such  a charge,  coming  from  such  a quarter,  appeared  to  me  then,  as  it  appears 
now,  of  too  grave  a character  and  too  serious  a consequence  to  be  withheld  from  the 
notice  of  the  Board  of  Regents.  I therefore  presented  the  matter  unofficially  to  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Institution,  Chief  Justice  Taney,  and  was  advised  by  him  to  allow 
the  matter  to  rest  until  the  then  existing  excitement  with  respect  to  the  organization  of 
the  Institution  should  subside ; . . . and  I now  embrace  the  first  opportunity  of  bring- 
ing the  subject  officially  to  your  notice,  and  asking  from  you  an  investigation  into  the 
justice  of  the  charges  alleged  against  me.  And  this  I do  most  earnestly,  with  the  de- 
sire that  when  we  shall  all  have  passed  from  this  stage  of  being,  no  imputation  of  having 
attempted  to  evade  in  silence  so  grave  a charge  shall  rest  on  me,* — nor  on  you , of  having 
continued  to  devolve  upon  me  duties  of  the  highest  responsibility,  after  that  was  known 
to  some  of  you  individually,  which  if  true  should  render  mo  entirely  unworthy  of 
your  confidence.  Duty  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  as  well  as  regard  to  my  own  memory, 
to  my  family,  and  to  the  truth  of  history,  demands  that  I should  lay  this  matter  be- 
fore you,  and  place  in  your  hands  the  documents  necessary  to  establish  the  veracity  of 
my  testimony  so  falsely  impeached,  and  the  integrity  of  my  motives  so  wantonly  as- 
sailed.”! 

A select  committee  of  the  Board  of  Regents  having  accordingly  been  appointed  to 
examine  fully  into  the  imputations  referred  to,  and  thereupon  to  report  the  conclusion 
reached, — after  a careful  consideration  of  all  the  evidence  and  documents  accessible, 
presented  through  its  chairman,  President  Felton,  of  Harvard  University,  a compre- 
hensive report,  from  which  the  following  extracts  are  made  : 

“ The  committee  have  carefully  examined  the  documents  relating  to  the  subject,  and 
especially  the  article  to  which  the  communication  of  Professor  Henry  refers.  This  ar- 
ticle occupies  over  ninety  pages,  and  purports  to  be  La  defense  against  the  injurious 

* “ It  was  my  wish  in  every  statement  to  render  Mr.  Morse  full  and  scrupulous  jus- 
tice. While  I wras  constrained  therefore  to  state  that  he  had  made  no  discoveries  in 
science,  I distinctly  declared  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  merit  of  combining  and  ap- 
plying the  discoveries  of  others  in  the  invention  of  the  best  practical  form  of  the 
magnetic  telegraph.  My  testimony  tended  to  establish  the  fact  that  though  not  emti- 
tled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  electro-magnet  for  telegraphic  purposes,  he  was  enti- 
tled to  his  particular  machine,  register,  alphabet,  &c.  This  however  did  not  meet 
the  full  requirements  of  Mr.  Morse’s  comprehensive  claim.” 

t Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  85,  86. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


89 


deductions  drawn  from  the  deposition  of  Prof.  Joseph  Henry  (in  the  several  telegraph 
suits),  with  a critical  review  of  said  deposition,  and  an  examination  of  Professor  Hen- 
ry’s alleged  discoveries  hearing  upon  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph.’  The  first  thing 
which  strikes  the  reader  of  this  article  is,  that  its  title  is  a misnomer.  It  is  simply  an 
assault  upon  Professor  Henry.;  an  attempt  to  disparage  his  character;  to  deprive  him 
of  his  honors  as  a scientific  discoverer ; to  impeach  his  credibility  as  a witness,  and  his 
integrity  as  a man.  It  is  a disingenuous  piece  of  sophistical  argument,  such  as  an  un- 
scrupulous advocate  might  employ  to  pervert  the  truth,  misrepresent  the  facts,  and 
misinterpret  the  language  in  which  the  facts  belonging  to  the  other  side  of  the  case 
are  stated. 

“Mr.  Morse  charges  that  the  deposition  of  Professor  Henry  ‘ contains  imputations 
against  his  (Morse’s)  personal  character,’  whiclf  it  does  not,  and  assumes  it  as  a duty  ‘to 
expose  the  utter  non-reliability  of  Professor  Henry’s  testimony ;’  that  testimony  being 
supported  by  the  most  competent  authorities,  and  by  the  history  of  scientific  discov- 
ery. He  asserts  that  he  ‘is  not  indebted  to  him  [Professor  Henry]  for  any  discovery 
in  science  bearing  on  the  telegraph,’  he  having  himself  acknowledged  such  indebted- 
ness in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  and  the  fact  being  independently  substantiated 
by  the  testimony  of  Sears  C.  Walker,  and  the  statement  of  Mr.  Morse’s  own  associate, 
Dr.  L.  D.  Gale.  Mr.  Morse  further  maintains  that  all  discoveries  bearing  upon  the  tele- 
graph were  made  not  by  Professor  Henry,  but  by  others,  and  prior  to  any  experiments 
of  Professor  Henry  in  the  science  of  electro-magnetism ; contradicting  in  this  proposi- 
tion the  facts  in  the  history  of  scientific  discovery  perfectly  established  and  recognized 
throughout  the  scientific  world. 

“The  essence  of  the  charges  against  Professor  Henry  is,  that  he  gave  false  testimony 
in  his  deposition  in  the  telegraph  cases,  and  that  he  has  claimed  the  credit  of  discov- 
eries in  the  sciences  bearing  upon  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  which  were  made  by 
previous  investigators;  in  other  words,  that  he  has  falsely  claimed  what  does  not  be- 
long to  him,  but  does  belong  to  others.  . . . Your  committee  do  not  conceive  it  to 

be  necessary  to  follow  Mr.  Morse  through  all  the  details  of  his  elaborate  attack.  For- 
tunately, a plain  statement  of  a few  leading  facts  will  be  sufficient  to  place  the  essen- 
tial points  of  the  case  in. a clear  light.”  . . . 

[After  a review  of  the  evidences  furnished  (unnecessary  to  be  here  reproduced),  the 
report  proceeds : ] 

“It  thus  appears,  both  from  Mr.  Morse’s  own  admission  down  to  1848,  and  from  the 
testimony  of  others  most  familiar  with  the  facts,  that  Professor  Henry  discovered  the 
law,  or  ‘principle,’  as  Mr.  Morse  designates  it,  which  was  necessary  to  make  the  prac- 
tical working  of  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  at  considerable  distances  possible ; that 
Mr.  Morse  was  first  informed  of  this  discovery  by  Dr.  Gale;  that  he  availed  himself  of 
it  at  once,  and  that  it  never  occurred  to  Mr.  Morse  to  deny  this  fact  until  after  1848. 
He  had  steadily  and  fully  acknowledged  the  merits  and  genius  of  Mr.  Henry,  as  the 
discoverer  of  facts  and  laws  in  science  of  the  highest  importance  in  the  success  of  his 
long-cherished  invention  of  a magnetic  telegraph.  Mr.  Henry  was  the  discoverer  of  a 
principle,  Mr.  Morse  was  the  inventor  of  a machine,  the  object  of  which  was  to  record 
characters  at  a distance,  to  convey  intelligence ; in  other  words  to  carry  into  execu- 
tion the  idea  of  an  electric  telegraph.  But  there  were  obstacles  in  the  way  which  he 
could  not  overcome  until  he  learned  the  discoveries  of  Professor  Henry,  and  applied 
them  to  his  machine.  These  facts  are  undeniable.’  They  constitute  a part  of  the  his- 
tory of  science  and  invention.  They  were  true  in  1848,  they  were  equally  true  in  1855, 
when  Professor  Morse’s  article  was  published.  . . . 

“What  changed  Mr.  Morse’s  opinion  of  Professor  Henry,  not  only  as  a scientific  in- 
vestigator, but  as  a man  of  integrity,  after  the  admissions  of  his  indebtedness  to  his 
researches,  and  the  oft-repeated  expressions  of  warm  personal  regard  ? It  appears 
that  Mr.  Morse  was  involved  in  a number  of  lawsuits,  growing  out  of  contested  claims 
to  the  right  of  using  electricity  for  telegraphic  purposes.  The  circumstances  under 
which  Professor  Henry,  as  a well-known  investigator  in  this  department  of  physics, 
was  summoned  by  one  of  the  parties  to  testify  have  already  been  stated.  The  testi- 


90 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


mony  of  Mr.  Henry,  while  supporting  tlie  claims  of  Mr.  Morse  as  the  inventor  of  an 
admirable  invention,  denied  to  him  the  additional  merit  of  being  a discoverer  of  new 
facts  or  laws  of  nature,  and  to  this  extent  perhaps  was  considered  unfavorable  to 
some  part  of  the  claim  of  Mr.  Morse  to  an  exclusive  right  to  employ  the  electro-magnet 
for  telegraphic  purposes.  Professor  Henry’s  deposition  consists  of  a series  of  answers 
to  verbal,  as  well  as  written,  interrogatories  propounded  to  him,  which  were  not 
limited  to  his  published  writings,  or  the  subject  of  electricity,  but  extended  to  investi- 
gations and  discoveries  in  general  having  a bearing  upon  the  electric  telegraph.  He 
gave  his  testimony  at  a distance  from  his  notes  and  manuscripts,  and  it  would  not 
have  been  surprising  if  inaccuracies  had  occurred  in  some  parts  of  his  statement;  but 
all  the  material  points  in  it  are  sustained  by  independent  testimony,  and  that  portion 
which  relates  directly  to  Mr.  Morse  agrees  entirely  with  the  statement  of  his  own 
assistant.  Dr.  Gale.  Had  his  deposition  been  objectionable,  it  ought  to  have  been  im- 
peached before  the  court ; but  this  was  not  attempted ; and  the  following  tribute  to 
Professor  Henry  by  the  judge,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  indicates  th# impression  made  upon  the  court  itself  by  all  the  testimony 
in  the  case:  ‘ It  is  due  to  him  to  say  that  no  one  lias  contributed  more  to  enlarge  the 
knowledge  of  electro-magnetism,  and  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the  great  inventions 
of  which  we  are  speaking,  than  the  Professor  himself.  ’” 

The  committee,  in  summing  up  the  various  testimonies,  justly  declare  of  Professor 
Henry,  that  “lie  has  freely  communicated  information  to  those  who  have  sought  it 
from  him,  among  whom  lias  been  Mr.  Morse  himself,  as  appears  by  his  own  acknowl- 
edgments. But  he  has  never  applied  his  scientific  discoveries  to  practical  ends  for  his 
own  pecuniary  benefit.  It  was  natural  therefore  that  he  should  feel  a repugnance  to 
taking  any  part  in  the  litigation  between  rival  inventors,  and  it  was  inevitable  that 
when  forced  to  give  his  testimony,  he  should  distinctly  point  out  what  was  so  clear  in 
his  own  mind  and  is  so  fundamental  a fact  in  the  history  of  human  progress,  the  dis- 
tinctive functions  of  the  discoverer,  and  the  inventor  who  applies  discoveries  to  prac- 
tical purposes  in  the  business  of  life. 

“Mr.  Henry  has  always  done  full  justice  to  the  invention  of  Mr.  Morse.  While  he 
could  not  sanction  the  claim  of  Mr.  Morse  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  electro-magnet,  he 
has  given  him  full  credit  for  the  mechanical  contrivances  adapted  to  the  application 
of  his  invention.  . . . 

“ Your  committee  come  unhesitatingly  to  the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Morse  has  failed  to 
substantiate  any  one  of  the  charges  he  lias  made  against  Professor  Henry,  although 
the  burden  of  proof  lay  upon  him ; and  that  all  the  evidence,  including  the  unbiased 
admissions  of  Mr.  Morse  himself,  is  on  the  other  side.  Mr.  Morse’s  charges  not  only 
remain  unproved,  but  they  are  positively  disproved. 

“Your  committee  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 

“ Resolved , That  Professor  Morse  has  not  succeeded  in  refuting  the  statements  of 
Professor  Henry  in  the  deposition  given  by  the  latter  in  1849,  that  he  has  not  proved 
any  one  of  the  accusations  against  Professor  Henry,  and  that  he  has  not  disproved  any 
one  of  his  own  admissions  in  regard  to  Professor  Henry’s  discoveries  in  electro- 
magnetism, and  their  importance  to  his  own  invention  of  the  electro-magnetic  tele- 
graph. 

“ Resolved , That  there  is  nothing  in  Professor  Morse’s  article  that  diminishes  in  the 
least,  the  confidence  of  this  Board  in  the  integrity  of  Professor  Henry,  or  in  the  value 
of  those  great  discoveries  which  have  placed  his  name  among  those  ol  the  most  dis- 
tinguished cultivators  of  science,  and  have  done  so  much  to  exalt  the  scientific  repu- 
tation of  the  country. 

“ Resolved , That  this  report,  with  the  resolutions,  be  recorded  in  the  Proceedings  of 
the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  Institution.” 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the 

Board  of  Regents.  * 

* Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  pp.  88-98. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


91 


NOTE  I.  (From  p.  02.) 

OVERSTATEMENT  OF  MORSE’S  INVENTION. 

It  was  perhaps  to  have  been  expected  that  the  owners  of  the  Morse  patents,  know- 
ing the  influence  which  the  unbiased  opinions  of  Henry  (subpoenaed  as  an  expert)  un- 
doubtedly exercised  upon  the  minds  and  decisions  of  the  justices  before  whom  the 
telegraph  suits  were  brought  for  trial,  should  regard  with  much  stronger  feeling  what 
seemed  to  them  adverse  in  his  testimony,  than  what  was  really  favorable  to  their  inter- 
ests. But  that  the  sweeping  assumptions  advanced  by  the  claimants  were  unwar- 
rantable, has  been  distinctly  affirmed  by  the  highest  judicial  authority. 

Justice  Woodbury,  presiding  at  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  (Massachusetts),  in 
his  decision  in  1850,  in  the  case,  of  “ Smith  vs.  Downing  and  others,”  remarked  of  the 
successive  reissues  of  the  original  Morse  patent,  with  expanding  claims : “ In  his  last 
renewal  of  1848  there  are  introduced  for  the  first  time  some  changes  of  language,  and 
some  tendencies  in  a part  of  them  (as  well  as  in  some  of  the  arguments)  to  make  the 
claim  broader,  and  as  in  the  letter  just  quoted,  to  cover  all  applications  of  electro- 
magnetism, if  not  of  electricity,  to  convey  intelligence,  or  to  telegraph  to  a distance. 

. . . ,As  this  broader  claim  goes  far  beyond  what  we  have  already  seen  was  that 

made  in  the  caveat  and  in  the  first  specification  and  in  the  original  patent,  as  well  as 
in  all  the  subsequent  renewals ; as  it  conflicts  with  much  of  the  language  of  this  very 
last  renewal,  looking  only  to  a new  method  and  a mere  improvement  on  what  existed 
before ; and  as  he  seems  to  disavow  it  in  his  own  evidence ; and  as  on  everything  in 
the  case,  it  is  at  least  questionable  whether  he  could  have  intended  to  patent  anything 
except  an  improvement  on  what  before  existed,  I do  not  think  it  just  to  place  a broader 
construction  on  his  language  than  the  whole  subject-matter  and  description  and  nature 
of  the  case  seem  to  indicate  as  designed.  . . . And  I the  more  readily  adopt  this 

course  for  his  own  protection,  as  such  broader  view  might  subject  his  patent  to  be 
considered  void,  both  for  claiming  too  much,  and  for  claiming  also  the  invention  of 
a mere  principle.  It  would  be  claiming  too  much,  as  it  would  cover  the  application 
in  everyway — of  electro-magnetism  to  telegraphs;  when  this  as  will  be  seen  here- 
after by  the  history  of  this  subject,  and  as  is  sworn  to  by  a large  number  of  highly  in- 
telligent experts,  had  been  known  publicly  and  for  years  before  Morse’s  first  attention 
to  the  subject  in  1832.  Indeed  he  himself  virtually  admits  the  truth  of  this  in  his 
testimony.  Others  no  less  than  the  persons  cited,  as  well  as  the  history  of  the  pro- 
gress on  this  subject,  show  that  several  had  before  Morse  not  only  made  this  discovery, 
but  applied  both  electricity  and  electro-magnetism  to  the  purpose  of  telegraphing. 
But  if  by  his  alphabet  and  record,  he  has  been  successful  in  making  an  improvement 
in  the  use  of  electricity  for  that  purpose,  and  wished  to  secure  the  new  method  of 
doing  it,  he  was  at  liberty  in  point  of  law  to  make  out  a patent  for  that  new  mode ; but 
for  nothing  more.  He  came  into  the  world  too  late  for  truly  claiming  much  as  new. 
A large  galaxy  of  discoverers  on  this  subject  had  preceded  him.” 

To  a similar  purport  was  the  language  of  Chief  Justice  Taney  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  in  his  final  decision  in  the  case  of  “ O’Reilly  and  others  vs.  Morse 
and  others which  however  went  so  far  as  to  condemn  as  untenable  the  substance 
of  the  eighth  claim  introduced  by  Morse’s  reissued  patent  of  1848.  The  Chief  Justice 
said:  “It  is  impossible  to  misunderstand  the  extent  of  this  claim.  He  claims  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  every  improvement,  when  the  motive  power  is  the  electric  or  galvanic 
current,  and  the  result  is  the  marking  or  printing  intelligible  characters  signs  or  let- 
ters at  a distance.  . . . The  patent  confers  on  him  the  exclusive  right  to  use  the 

means  he  specifies  to  produce  the  result  or  effect  he  describes, — and  nothing  more. 

. . . Indeed,  if  the  eighth  claim  of  the  patentee  can  be  maintained,  there  was  no 

necessity  for  any  specification  further  than  to  say  that  he  had  discovered  that  by 
using  the  motive  power  of  electro-magnetism  he  could  print  intelligible  characters  at 
a distance.  We  presume  that  it  will  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  no  patent  could 
have  issued  on  such  a specification.”* 

*Hoivard,s  Reports,  vol.  xv,  pp.  112-119. 


92 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


NOTE  J.  (From  p.  62.) 
henry’s  appreciation  of  professor  morse. 

Although  Henry  (together  with  several  other  eminent  physicists  and  electricians,) 
was  summoned  by  the  contestants  of  Professor  Morse’s  patent,  his  testimony  tended 
probably  quite  as  much  to  sustain  what  appeared  to  him  the  patentee’s  equitable 
claims,  as  to  restrain  his  overshadowing  pretensions.  That  both  before  and  after 
these  legal  controversies,  Henry  cherished  only  kindly  feelings  toward  Professor 
Morse,  the  following  correspondence  will  sufficiently  attest. 

At  the  close  of  October,  1837,  Henry  had  learned  from  Professor  Gale,  with  a natu- 
rally warm  interest,  of  his  success  in  operating  the  Morse  recorder  by  a proper  adjust- 
ment of  the  length  of  coil  on  his  Henry  magnet,  and  a battery  of  87  cells  (each  hav- 
ing about  14  square  inches  of  zinc  surface),  through  the  length  of  five  miles  of  cotton- 
wrapped  copper  wire  (one-sixteenth  of  an  inch  in  diameter),  coiled  on  a large  reel.* 
And  on  the  13th  of  November  following,  he  was  informed  of  his  further  success  in  in- 
terposing a second  similar  reel  of  wire  (making  ten  miles)  in  the  circuit,  with  but 
little  diminution  of  effect. 

In  the  following  year,  1838,  Henry,  during  his  elaborate  and  profound  researches 
on  electrical  “induction”  (since  become  classical),  desired  to  borrow  one  of  these  five- 
mile  reels  of  wire,  for  the  purpose  of  pressing  his  inquiries  to  their  furthest  extent.  Pro- 
fessor Morse  being  then  absent  in  Europe,  his  colleague  Professor  Gale  very  cheerfully 
lent  the  wire.  On  returning  the  borrowed  wire  in  1839,  Henry,  in  acknowledgment 
of  the  courtesy,  sent  both  to  Professor  Gale  and  to  Professor  Morse  a copy  of  his 
memoir  (read  before  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  November  2,  1838),  “ with  the 
respects  of  the  author.” 

Professor  Morse,  on  his  return,  addressed  a letter  to  Henry,  dated  New  York,  April 
24,  1839,  in  which  he  said  : 

“ My  Dear  Sir  : On  my  return  a few  days  since  from  Europe,  I found  directed  to 
me,  through  your  politeness,  a copy  of  your  valuable  “ Contributions,”  for  which  I beg 
you  to  accept  my  warmest  thanks.  . . . 

“I  was  glad  to  learn,  by  a letter  received  in  Paris  from  Dr.  Gale,  that  a spool  of  five 
miles  of  my  wire  was  loaned  to  you,  and  I perceive  that  you  have  already  made  some 
interesting  experiments  with  it.  In  the  absence  of  Dr.  Gale,  who  has  gone  South,  I feel  a 
great  desire  to  consult  some  scientific  gentleman  on  points  of  importance  bearing  on  my 
telegraph.  I should  be  exceedingly  happy  to  see  you,  and  am  tempted  to  break  away 
from  my  absorbing  engagements  here  to  find  you  at  Princeton.  In  case  I should  be  able 
to  visit  Princeton  for  a few  days,  a week  or  two  hence,  how  should  I find  you  engaged  ? 
. . . I have  many  questions  to  ask,  but  should  be  happy  in  your  reply  to  this  letter 

of  an  answer  to  this  general  one : Have  you  met  with  any  facts  in  your  experiments 
thus  far  that  would  lead  you  to  think  that  my  mode  of  telegraphic  communication  will 
prove  impracticable  ? . . . I think  that  you  have  pursued  an  original  course  of 

experiment,  and  discovered  facts  of  more  value  to  me  than  any  that  have  been  pub- 
lished abroad.  I will  not  trouble  you  at  this  time  with  my  questions  until  I know 
your  engagements.  Accompanying  this  is  a copy  of  a report  made  by  the  Academy 
of  Industry,  of  Paris,  on  my  Telegraph,  which  I beg  you  to  accept. 

“ Believe  me  dear  sir, 

“ With  the  highest  respect, 

“ Your  most  obedient  servant, 

“Samuel  F.  B.  Morse.” 

* This  coil  of  wire,  wound  on  a small  axis  of  iron,  formed  a solid  cylinder  eighteen 
inches  long  and  thirteen  inches  in  diameter.  Professor  Gale’s  preparation  for  this 
experiment  was  noticed  in  Silliman’s  Am.  Journal  of  Science  (October,  1837,  vol.  xxxiii, 
p.  187).  And  Professor  Morse,  in  a letter  to  Mr.  A.  Vail,  dated  October  7,  1837,  con- 
gratulated himself  that  “Professor  Gale’s  services  will  be  invaluable  to  us,  and  I am 
glad  that  he  is  disposed  to  enter  into  the  matter  with  zeal.” 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


93 


To  this  letter  Henry  replied  as  follows: 

Princeton,  May  6,  1839. 

Dear  Sir  : Your  favor  of  the  24th  ultimo  came  to  Princeton  during  my  absence, 
which  will  account  for  the  long  delay  of  my  answer.  I am  pleased  to  learn  that  you 
fully  sanction  the  loan  which  I obtained  from  Dr.  Gale  of  your  wire  ; and  I shall  he 
happy  if  any  of  the  results  are  found  to  have  a practical  hearing  on  the  electrical  tele- 
graph. It  will  give  me  much  pleasure  to  see  you  in  Princeton  after  this  week;  my  en- 
gagements will  not  then  interfere  with  our  communications  on  the  subject  of  electric- 
ity. I am  acquainted  with  no  fact  which  would  lead  me  to  suppose  that  the  project 
of  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  is  impracticable ; on  the  contrary,  I believe  that  sci- 
ence is  now  ripe  for  the  application,  and  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in  the  way,  but 
such  as  ingenuity  and  enterprise  may  obviate.  But  what  form  of  the  apparatus,  or 
what  application  of. the  power,  will  prove  best,  can  I believe  be  only  determined  by 
careful  experiment.  I can  say  however  that  so  far  as  I am  acquainted  with  the  mi- 
nutiae of  your  plan,  I see  no  practical  difficulty  in  the  way  of  its  application  for  com- 
paratively short  distances  ; * but  if  the  length  of  the  wire  between  the  stations  be 
great,  I think  that  some  other  modification  will  be  found  necessary  in  order  to  develop 
a sufficient  power  at  the  farther  end  of  the  line.t  I shall  however  be  happy  to  con- 
verse freely  with  you  on  these  points  when  we  meet.  In  the  meantime,  I remain, 

“ With  much  respect, 

“ Yours,  &.C., 

“Joseph  Henry.” 

A short  time  after  this,  Professor  Morse  visited  Henry  at  Princeton;  and  during  this 
first  personal  interview  in  May,  1839,  received  satisfactory  answers  to  various  ques- 
tions presented.  Among  them,  Henry  stated  that  he  had  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
magnetism  could  be  induced  in  soft  iron  “at  the  distance  of  a hundred  miles  or  more 
by  a single  impulse  or  from  a single  battery (a  striking  expression  of  faith  in  his 
own  “intensity”  magnet :)  also,  that  with  a given  battery,  circuit,  and  electro-magnet 
at  a distance,  the  inclusion  of  intermediate  electro-magnets  at  way-stations  would 
not  sensibly  reduce  the  magnetic  power  at  the  several  points.  On  the  subject  of  the 
differences  between  “quantity”  and  “intensity”  magnets,  Professor  Morse  was  still 
greatly  in  the  dark,  and  he  asked  the  question,  “Is  it  quantity  or  intensity  which  has 
most  effect  in  inducing  magnetism  in  soft  iron?”  Henry  fully  explained  to  him  that 
for  producing  the  greatest  magnetic  effects,  a “ quantity”  magnet  and  battery,  with 
short  and  free  circuit,  were  required ; but  that  for  a long  circuit  (required  for  magnet- 
izing at  a distance),  an  “intensity”  magnet  and  battery  were  indispensable. X 

* [It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  was  a year  and  a half  after  the  writer  had  been 
informed  by  Dr.  Gale  of  his  successful  experiment  through  ten  miles  of  wire.  By 
“comparatively  short  distances,”  therefore,  he  must  evidently  have  intended  distances 
less  than  those  separating  our  principal  cities.] 
t[The  peculiar  form  of  expression  here  used,  suggesting  the  probable  occasion  for 
another  modification  “in  order  to  develop  a sufficient  power— at  the  farther  end  of  the 
line,”  points  directly  to  his  own  contrivance  (exhibited  before  his  classes,  four  years 
previously)  of  a supplemental  “quantity”  magnet  and  battery  at  the  distant  station. 
Henry  had  no  doubt  of  being  able  to  magnetize  iron  at  a distance  of  several  hundred 
miles,  and  hence  evidently  did  not  contemplate  dividing  the  line  into  a “relay”  of 
circuits,  as  devised  by  Professor  Morse.  His  language  that  a re-enforcement  may  be 
necessary  “ if  the  length  of  the  mire  between  the  stations  be  great,”  plainly  shows  this. 
But  he  anticipated  that  the  attractive  power  developed  would  be  feeble  ; while  he  de- 
clared his  confidence  that  there  were  no  scientific  “ difficulties  in  the  way.”  Surprise 
has  been  expressed  that  Henry  did  not  frankly  give  Professor  Morse  the  benefit  of  this 
solution  of  the  suggested  difficulty,  if  it  were  then  in  his  mind.  But  is  not  the  subsequent 
reticence  of  Professor  Morse,  on  the  expedient  of  a “relay”  (invented  by  him  two 
years  previously,  as  alleged),  much  more  surprising  ? Henry  referred  to  the  enfeeble- 
ment  on  a long  line,  as  a merely  “practical  difficulty”  easily  “obviated  by  ingenuity.”] 
X Of  the  communications  made  on  the  occasion  of  this  very  interesting  and  impor- 
tant interview,  occupying  an  “afternoon  and  evening,”  we  have  unfortunately  only 
the  result  furnished  by  Professor  Morse’s  very  meager  statement.  (Prime’s  Life  of 
Morse,  chap,  x,  p.  422.)  That  Henry,  in  explaining  the  differing  functions  of  the  two 


94 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


During  tlie  long  and  weary  interval  in  which  Professor  Morse — with  hope  deferred — 
was  unavailingly  prosecuting  his  memorial  to  Congress  for  assistance,  Henry  wrote  to 
him  the  following  encouraging  and  friendly  letter: 

“ Princeton  College,  February  24,  1342. 

“My  Dear  Sin  : I am  pleased  to  learn  that  you  have  again  petitioned  Congress  in 
reference  to  your  telegraph,  and  I most  sincerely  hope  you  will  succeed  in  convincing 
our  representatives  of  the  importance  of  the  invention.  In  this  you  may  perhaps 
find  some  difficulty;  since  in  the  minds  of  many,  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  is 
associated  with  the  various  chimerical  projects  constantly  presented  to  the  public, 
and  particularly  with  the  schemes  so  popular  a year  or  two  ago,  for  the  application  of 
electricity  as  a moving  power  in  the  arts.  The  case  is  however  entirely  different  in 
regard  to  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph.  Science  is  now  fully  ripe  for  this  applica- 
tion, and  I have  not  the  least  doubt,  if  proper  means  be  afforded,  Qf  the  perfect  suc- 
cess of  the  invention.  The  idea  of  transmitting  intelligence  to  a distance  by  means 
of  electrical  action  lias  been  suggested  by  various  persons  from  the  time  of  Franklin 
to  the  present ; but  until  wdthin  the  last  few  years,  or  since  the  principal  discoveries 
in  electro-magnetism,  all  attempts  to  reduce  it  to  practice  were  necessarily  unsuccess- 
ful. The  mere  suggestion  however  of  a scheme  of  this  kind,  is  a matter  for  which 
little  credit  can  be  claimed,  since  it  is  one  which  would  naturally  arise  in  the  mind 
of  almost  any  person  familiar  with  the  phenomena  of  electricity  ; but  the  bringing 
it  forward  at  the  proper  moment,  when  the  developments  of  science  are  able  to  furnish 
the  means  of  certain  success,  and  the  devising  a plan  for  carrying  it  into  practical 
operation,  are  the  grounds  of  a just  claim  to  scientific  reputation  as  well  as  to  public 
patronage.  About  the  same  time  with  yourself,  Professor  Wheatstone,  of  London, 
and  Dr.  Steinheil,  of  Germany,  proposed  plans  of  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph ; but 
these  differ  as  much  from  yours  as  the  nature  of  the  common  principle  would  well 
permit : and  unless  some  essential  improvements  have  lately  been  made  in  these 
European  plans,  I should  prefer  the  one  invented  by  yourself. 

“ With  my  best  wishes  for  your  success,  I remain,  with  much  esteem, 

“Yours  truly, 

“Joseph  Henry.” 

Professor  Morse’s  biographer,  in  reproducing  this  letter,  makes  the  comment : “This 
was  the  most  encouraging  communication  Professor  Morse  received  during  the  dark 
ages  between  1839,  and  1843.”  And  he  again  notices  it  on  a subsequent  page : “ In 
the  summer  of  1842,  Professor  Morse  communicated  to  the  Hon.  W.  W.  Boardman, 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress,  the  encouraging  letter  from  Pro- 
fessor Henry,  of  February  24,  1842.”*  And  when  on  December  30,  of  1842,  the  Hon. 
Charles  G.  Ferris,  of  New  York,  reported  in  the  House  of  Representatives  the  bill  au- 
thorizing the  construction  of  the  telegraph,  this  justly  valued  testimonial  of  Henry, 
accompanied  Professor  Morse’s  memorial.  The  Hon.  Fernando  Wood,  of  New  York  (a 
colleague  of  Mr.  Ferris),  in  reviewing  the  history  of  that  enactment  some  thirty  years 
later,  (on  the  occasion  of  the  memorial  proceedings  at  the  Capitol  in  honor  of  Professor 
Morse,)  did  not  forget  to  remark:  “With  this  letter  [from  Professor  Morse]  was  an- 
other to  him  from  Prof.  Joseph  Henry,  now  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  and  then 
of  Princeton  College,  indorsing  and  sustaining  the  application.  Professor  Henry  was 
deemed  high  authority  on  all  scientific  subjects  generally,  and  especially  upon  this,  to 
which  he  had  devoted  much  attention,  being  himself  a successful  investigator  in  elec- 
tro-magnetic science.”!  The  bill  of  Mr.  Ferris  passed  the  House  of  Representatives, 

kinds  of  magnets,  would  have  unfolded  the  utility  of  the  “quantity”  magnet  as  a 
terminal  re-enforcement  of  a long  “intensity”  line,  seems  highly  probable, — if  not 
almost  inevitable.  If  Professor  Morse  did  not  profit  by  it,  or  failed  rightly  to  appre- 
hend it,  this  may  be  explained  by  his  possible  preoccupation  with  the  project  of 
dividing  a long  line  into  a succession  of  “relays.” 

^Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap,  x,  pp.  423  and  433. 

t Memorial  of  F.  S.  B.  Morse,  April  16,  1872,  Washington,  1875,  p.  79. 


HENRY  AND  TIIE  TELEGRAPH.  95 

February  23,  1843;  aucl  the  Morse  appropriation  was  secured,  by  passing  the  Senate, 
March  3,  1843. 

Very  shortly  after  this  successful  issue,  Prof.  James  C.  Fisher,  who  in  the  absence 
of  Dr.  Gale  had  taken  his  place  in  assisting  Professor  Morse,  wrote  to  Henry  explain- 
ing the  method  proposed  for  insulating  the  wires  and  laying  the  line  of  conductors 
underground,  and  asking  advice  as  to  the  best  method  of  wrapping.  To  this  commu- 
nication Henry  replied  by  letter  dated — 


“Princeton,  April  17,  1843. 

“ Dear  Sir  : A friend  ot  mine  in  Trenton  has  a machine  for  winding  wire  of  which 
he  promised  to  give  a description.  I will  write  to  you  on  the  subject  and  send  you  a 
copy  of  his  answer.  Tlip  greatest  practical  difficulty  you  will  have  to  contend  with, 
I should  think,  will  be  the  insula tign  of  the  wires.  Twine  is  a partial  conductor,  and 
by  making  the  surface  sufficiently  extended,  .lateral  transmission  will  take  place  to 
some  extent.  The  loss  however  on  this  account  can  only  be  determined  by  direct 
experiment  with  extended  wire.  It  will  probably  increase  with  an  increasing  ratio ; 
first  on  account  of  the  greater  surface  of  contact,  and  secondly  because  electricity 
of  greater  tension  will  be  required  to  send  the  current  through  the  longer  wire.  In 
order  to  diminish  the  number  of  points  of  contact,  it  might  perhaps  be  Avell  to  wrap 
around  each  wire— besides  its  continuous  covering,  an  extra  strand  of  coarse  twine, 
with  the  several  turns  at  a distance  from  each  other.  . . .” 


When  Professor  Morse,  in  August,  1843,  received  160  miles  of  covered  copper  wire, 
designed  to  form  two  independent  circuits,  each  of  a double  line  of  40  miles  in  extent, 
to  reach  from  Washington  to  Baltimore  (one  pair  for  the  outgoing  circuit  and  the  other 
for  the  return  circuit),  he  invited  Henry  and  others  to  be  present  at  a preliminary  ex- 
periment in  New  York  City,  on  the  8th  of  August,  to  test  the  capacity  of  electrical 
transmission . This  very  interesting  trial  with  so  unusual  a length  of  conductor  would 

for  the  first  time  decide  the  correctness  of  Henry’s  opinion  that  magnetization  could  be 

effected  “ at  the  distance  of  a hundred  miles  or  more  by  a single  impulse.”  This  crit- 
ical test  never  befoie  attempted,  Henry  was  unfortunately  prevented  from  witnessing 
by  reason  of  his  professional  duties.  The  experiment  wras  eminently  successful  with 
a battery  of  100  Grove  elements;  and  the  magnet  was  operative  with  even  half  that 
number.  The  following  letter  to  Professor  Morse  expressed  Henry’s  regrets  at  being 
compelled  to  miss  such  an  opportunity  : 


“Princeton,  Augusts,  1843. 

“My  Dear  Sir  : I hope  you  will  pardon  me  for  not  before  acknowledging  the  receipt 
of  your  kind  letters  of  invitation  to  attend  your  galvanic  exhibition.  My  time  has 
been  so  much  occupied  during  the  last  three  weeks  with  an  extra  course  of  lectures 
and  our  examination,  and  so  little  at  my  own  disposal,  that  I was  unable  to  say 
whether  I could  be  in  the  city  on  the  day  you  mentioned  or  not.  I did  hope  however 
to  get  a"w  ay,  but  the  examination  prevented.  Dr.  Torrey  was  also  engaged,  and  could 
not  leave.  I do  not  know  however  that  I could  have  done  much  in  the  way  of  orig- 
inal experiments  in  the  course  of  a single  day.  I am  not  quick  in  the  process  of  in- 
venting experiments  unless  my  mind  is  thoroughly  aroused  to  the  subject  by  several 
days’  exclusive  attention  to  the  work,  and  then  I am  obliged  to  pause  between  each 
effort. # I have  not  been  able  since  I last  saw  you  to  devise  a satisfactory  process  for 
determining  the  velocity  of  galvanic  electricity;  and  on  reflection  I did  not. think  it 
worth  the  expense  which  would  be  incurred,  to  have  a machine  constructed  for  the 
mere  repetition  of  the  experiments  of  Wheatstone. 

“ I think  it  probable  that  I shall  visit  the  city  next  week,  as  I shall  be  unemployed 
from  this  time  until  a week  from  next  Monday.  If  there  is  any  prospect  of  your 


ind|™tion  of  the  lo£ical  care  bestowed  by  Henry  on  his  experimental  work  an 
the  key  to  Ins  successes.  He  had  little  confidence  in  the  profit  of  empirical  or  “ hai 
hazard”  trials.]  1 1 


96 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


repeating  any  of  your  experiments  previous  to  that  time,  I will  he  with  j^ou  on  any 
day  you  may  appoint. 

“With  much  respect  and  esteem, 

“ Yours  truly, 

“Joseph  Henry.” 

The  answer  to  this,  or  whether  any  further  preliminary  experiments  were  jointly 
performed  on  the  160  miles  of  wire,  does  not  appear.  As  the  line  of  wires  between 
Washington  and  Baltimore  was  being  laid,  Henry,  anxious  to  emphasize  the  importance 
of  keeping  the  separate  wires  at  some  distance  apart  throughout  their  circuit,  ad- 
dressed to  Professor  Morse  the  following  friendly  letter  on  the  subject: 

“Princeton,  January  24,  1844. 

“My  Dear  Sir:  I am  anxious  to  hear  from  you  in  reference  to  the  telegraph,  and 
I have  intended  to  write  to  you  on  the  subject  for  a month  past,  but  extra  college 
duties  have  occupied  all  my  thoughts  and  all  my  time  since  the  beginning  of  the 
present  term.  During  the  last  vacation  I occupied  myself  as  usual  with  my  investi- 
gations in  electricity,  and  among  other  results,  I arrived  at  one  which  I think  may 
have  an  important  bearing  on  the  success  of  the  telegraph.  It  is  this:  while  a current 
of  electricity  is  passing  through  a wire,  one  part  of  the  conductor  is  constantly  plus  to 
any  other  part  which  succeeds  it,  the  difference  in  the  degree  of  the  electrical  state 
constantly  increasing  as  the  distance  of  the  two  points  is  greater.  The  maximum 
difference  is  therefore  at  the  two  ends ; and  when  the  two  extremities  of  long  wires 
are  brought  into  near  approximation,  there  is  a great  tendency  in  the  elecricity  to  cut 
across  from  the  one  to  the  other.  This  tendency  is  not  due  as  has  been  supposed, 
merely  to  the  great  resistance  of  the  long  wire  and  the  cross-cut  offering  a less  resist- 
ing channel,  but  to  the  fact  of  the  one  part  being  positive  and  the  other  negative,  and 
t ie  consequent  great  attraction  of  the  electricity  in  the  one  part  for  the  unsaturated 
matter  in  the  other.  . . . On  reading  your  letter  on  the  subject  of  the  telegraph 

in  the  newspapers,  I was  struck  with  the  idea  that  you  had  probably  met  Avitli  the 
very  difficulty  my  researches  have  led  me  to  anticipate.  If  this  is  the  case,  and 
your  insulation  is  not  found  sufficient,  you  have  no  cause  to  blame  yourself,  since  the 
p *e\’ious  state  of  knowledge  on  the  subject  of  electricity  could  not  lead  you  to  suspect 
such  a condition  of  things. 

“With  much  respect, 

Yours  truly, 

• • “Joseph  Henry.” 

The  danger  apprehended  by  Henry  Avas  realized ; and  of  the  nine  miles  of  quadruple 
conductors  laid  in  the  ground,  Professor  Gale  had  already  discovered  that  the  galvanic 
current  could  not  be  carried  through  a single  mile;  a result  partly  due  to  the  injury 
done  to  the  insulation  of  the  wires  at  some  points,  in  the  process  of  enveloping  them 
in  a tube,  and  partly  to  the  energetic  induction  from  the  “extra  current”  first  dis- 
covered by  Henry.  In  a couple  of  weeks,  Professor  Morse  wrote  to  Henry  as  follows : 

“ Baltimore,  February  7,  1844. 

“My  Dear  Sir:  You  must  think  it  strange  that  I have  not  answered  your  letter 
of  the  24th  ultimo  before  this ; but  I have  this  moment  received  it  in  passing  through 
this  place  on  my  way  to  New  York,  which  I trust  will  be  a sufficient  apology  for  my 
apparent  neglect.  I have  read  your  letter  with  much  interest,  and  it  has  determined 
me  to  make  you  a visit  on  my  return  from  New'  York,  which  will  be  the  beginning  of 
the  week,  perhaps  on  Tuesday  morning,  the  13th  instant.  ...  I found  the  diffi- 
culty Avhic-h  you  apprehend  in  the  insulation  of  my  wires;  but  this  I will  explain 
when  I have  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you. 

“In  the  mean  time,  belieATe  me,  with  sincere  respect,. 

“Your  most  obedient  serArant, 

“Samuel  F.  B.  Morse.” 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


97 


At  his  next  interview  with  Henry  on  the  13th  of  February,  1844,  (on  his  way  from 
New  York,)  he  was  advised  to  suspend  his  wires  through  the  air  on  poles,  at  a suffi- 
cient elevation  to  avoid  injury  from  the  recklessness  of  mischievous  hoys:  as  Henry 
feared  that  the  risk  of  “cross-cut”  on  long  lines,  even  with  good  insulation,  was 
scarcely  avoidable.* * * §  Henry  also  informed  him  that  this  plan  had  been  successfully 
adopted  by  Gauss  and  Weber  ten  years  previously.. 

Professor  Morse,  who  had  thought  of  this.method  before,  but  with  much  distrust,  at 
once  determined  to  carry  it  out,  and  early  in  the  following  month,  March,  made  prepa- 
rations for  its  execution.  Two  methods  of  suspension  were  suggested,  the  first  plan 
(that  of  Mr.  Vail),  the  gathering  of  the  four  wrapped  or  insulated  wires  together  at 
their  supports,  requiring  but  a single  insulator  on  each  pole,  to  which  Professor  Morse 
was  himself  inclined  as  involving  least  cost ; the  second  plan  (that  of  Mr.  Ezra  Cor- 
nell), the  scattering  of  the  wires,  tud  the  supporting  of  them  apart  on  independent 
insulators.  The  following  is  Professor  Morse’s  account  to  Mr.  Cornell  of  a second  in- 
terview and  consultation  with  Henry  on  this  subject,  on  the  1st  of  March,  1844,  (on 
big  way  back  to  New  York,)  which  he  inadvertently  confounds  with  his  preceding 
interview  two  or  three  weeks  earlier : 

“ On  my  way  to  New  York,  where  I went  to  order  the  fixtures,  I stopped  at  Prince, 
ton,  and  called  on  my  old  friend  Professor  Henry,  who  inquired  how  I was  getting 
along  with  my  telegraph.!  I explained  to  him  the  failure  of  the  insulation  in  the 
pipes,  and  stated  that  I had  decided  to  place  the  wires  on  poles  in  the  air.  He  then 
inquired  how  I proposed  to  insulate  the  wires  where  they  were  attached  to  the  poles. 
[ showed  him  the  model  I had  of  Mr.  Vail’s  plan ; and  he  said : 1 It  will  not  do ; you 
will  meet  the  same  difficulty  you  had  in  the  pipes.’  I then  explained  to  him  your 
plan,  which  he  said  would  answer.”  X And  this  is  the  method  since  universally 
adopted  in  this  country.  On  the  24th  of  May  following,  the  first  message  was  sent 
aver  the  completed  telegraph  line  by  Professor  Morse  from  ^Vashington  to  Baltimore, 
md  immediately  repeated  by  Mr.  Vail  from  Baltimore  back  to  Washington. 

The  success  of  this  new  enterprise  (foreseen,  encouraged,  and  promoted,  by  Henry) 
having  been  assured,  various  competitors  sprang  up  as  usual,  (with  similar  and  with 
lissimilar  systems,)  to  share  in  its  benefits  and  profits  ; and  in  a few  years  numerous 
litigations  arose  in  resistance  of  real  or  supposed  infringements.  Notwithstanding 
:lie  zeal  and  bitterness  infused  into  these  controversies  by  interested  partisans,  Henry 
never  lost  his  interest  in  the  success  of  Professor  Morse’s  plan  of  telegraphing ; but 
w bile  desirous  that  meritorious  rival  schemes  (such  as  that  of  the  printing  telegraph, 
—first  invented  by  Alfred  Vail,  in  September,  1837,  and  developed  by  Royal  E.  House 
in  1846,  to  a practical  operation)  should  have  a fair  trial,  he  steadily  refused  to  be 
nade  a party  to  any  such  discussions ; until  at  last  he  was  summoned  by  subpcena  to 
attend  a trial  at  Boston,  to  testify  to  the  pre-existing  state  of  the  art.  § In  occupying 

* “Mr.  Morse  visited  me  at  Princeton  to  consult  me  on  the  arrangement  of  his  con- 
luctors.  During  this  visit  we  conversed  freely  on  the  subject  of  insulation  and  con- 
luction  of  wires.  I urged  him  to  put  his  wires  on  poles.”  (Smithsonian  Report  for 
L857,  pp.  112,  113. 

t [Such  an  inquiry  would  appear  superfluous  in  view  of  Professor  Morse’s  recent 
letter  dated  February  7.  The  whole  coloring  of  the  interview  is  inaccurate.  ] 

t Prime’s  Life  of  Morse,  chap.  xi.  pp.  479,  480.  A treatise  on  the  “Telegraph,”  just 
published,  gives  the  following  account  of  the  plan  adopted:  “An  arm  thirty  inches 
ong,  with  a piu  at  each  end,  bearing  a glass  bureau-knob, — an  insulation  proposed  by 
Vlr.  Cornell  and  approved  by  Professor  Henry,  was  secured  to  the  upper  end  of  each 
pole.  Around  the  bureau-kuobs  the  conducting  wires  were  wrapped.”  ( The  Telegraph 
in  America.  By  James  D.  Reid.  8vo.  New  York,  1879,  chap,  xi,  p.  116.) 

§ “A  series  of  controversies  and  law-suits  having  arisen  between  rival  claimants 
'or  telegraphic  patents,  I was  repeatedly  appealed  to  to  act  as  expert  and  witness  in 
luch  cases.  This  I uniformly  declined  to  do,  not  wishing  to  be  in  any  manner  in- 
volved in  these  litigations,  but  was  finally  compelled  under  legal  process  to  return  to 
loston  from  Maine,  (whither  I had  gone  on  a visit,)  and  to  give  evidence  on  the  sub- 
ect.”  ( Smithsonian  Report  for  1857,  p.  87.) 

7 E T 


98 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


a position  so  distasteful  to  liis  sensitive  and  generous  nature,  it  may  well  he  supposed 
that  however  reserved  and  cautious  his  attitude,  and  whatever  his  preferences,  the 
answers  (necessarily  conscientious)  drawn  from  him  by  skillful  attorneys  defending 
the  alleged  infringements,  and  the  coloring  given  to  such  answers  in  their  elaborate* 
arguments,  would  be  little  calculated  to  please  the  plaintiffs, — naturally  intent  on  the 
broadest  scope  and  comprehension,  of  their  claims.  And  from  this  time,  Professor 
Morse,  under  the  misjudging  influence  of  interested  supporters,  seemed  to  forget  that 
Henry  had  been  among  the  most  serviceable  and  unselfish  of  his  many  friends. 

In  1854  Professor  Morse’s  patent  (of  fourteen  years  from  1840)  was  about  expiring, 
and  an  application  for  its  extension  for  seven  years  longer,  according  to  the  provis- 
ions of  the  law,  was  pending  before  the  Hon.  Charles  Mason, — one  of  the  most  able, 
conscientious,  and  indefatigable  of  Patent  Office  Commissioners.  Inclined  from  the 
testimony  he  had  examined,  to  believe  that  the  merits  of  Professor  Morse’s  invention 
had  been  greatly  overestimated,  and  that  his  patent  from  the  breadth  of  interpreta- 
tion it  had  received,  was  acting  to  some  extent  as  an  obstruction  to  further  pro- 
gress in  the  art,  he  consulted  with  his  friend,  Professor  Henry,  as  to  the  independent 
value  of  the  Morse  system,  in  view  of  the  antecedent  state  of  the  art.  Henry,  with 
no  other  sentiment  than  that  of  impartial  arbitrator,  represented  that  Professor 
Morse,  without  the  advantage  of  scientific  culture,  had  the  great  merit  of  having 
combined  and  of  having  energetically  developed  and  established  a system  of  electro- 
magnetic telegraphy,  in  its  method  of  signaling  and  of  recording,  the  most  efficient 
of  contemporary  methods.  He  referred  to  the  needle-telegraph  of  his  personal  friend, 
Professor  Wheatstone  (whom  he  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  intelligent  and  ingenious 
of  modern  physicists),  as  being  in  his  judgment  inferior  practically  to  the  Morse  tele- 
graph ; and  he  urged  that  care  should  be  taken  not  to  let  the  extravagant  pretensions 
of  Professor  Morse’s  would-be  friends  lead  to  the  opposite  error  of  underrating  an  in- 
vention which  w«as  certainly  of  far  greater  value  to  the  community,  than  any  remu- 
neration which  had  yet  been  reaped  by  its  author  from  the  short-lived  monopoly. 

The  application  of  the  patentee  was  granted  by  the  Commissioner ; and  the  patent 
was  legally  extended  for  seven  years  from  the  19th  of  June,  1854.  Professor  Morse, 
in  ignorance  of  this  service,  had  at  the  time  unfortunately  written  (or  at  least  given 
his  signature  to)  the  ungracious  and  ungrateful  assault  on  Henry,  as  a pretender  in 
science,  and  a detractor  of  merit,  when  rising  fame  excited  his  envy.  And  early  the 
following  year,  to  the  injury  of  himself  alone,  had  the  stricture  published  in  a pam- 
phlet, and  widely  distributed. 

As  a sufficient  corrective  of  the  strange  misconception  of  his  disposition  and  motives, 
Henry  inquired  of  Judge  Mason,  if  he  recalled  their  interview  on  the  question  of  ex- 
tending the  Morse  patent ; and  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  responded  in  the  follow- 
ing letter : 

“United  States  Patent  Office,  March  31,  1856. 

“Sir:  Agreeably  to  your  request,  I now  make  the  following  statement : Some  two 
years  since,  when  an  appli cation  was  made  for  an  extension  of  Professor  Morse’s  pat- 
ent, I was  for  some  time  in  doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  making  that  extension.  Under 
these  circumstances  I consulted  with  several  persons,  and  among  others  with  yourself, 
with  a view  particularly  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  invention  fairly  due  to  Professor 
Morse.  The  result  of  my  inquiries  was  such  as  to  induce  mq  to  grant  the  extension. 
I will  further  say  that  this  was  in  accordance  with  your  express  recommendation,  and 
that  I was  probably  more  influenced  by  this  recommendation,  and  the  information  I 
obtained  from  you,  than  by  any  other  circumstance,  in  coming  to  that  conclusion. 

“ I am,  sir, 

“ Yours  very  respectfully, 

“ Charles  Maso-n.” 


“Prof.  J.  Henry. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


99' 


NOTE  K.  (From  p.  65.) 

THE  HATE  OF  PROFESSOR  MORSE’S  “ RELAY.” 

Although  the  depositions  of  Professor  Morse,  and  of  his  principal  assistant  (given  in 
law  suits  more  than  ten  years  after  the  event),  assign  from  memory  as  the  date  of  inven- 
tion of  the  “relay”  the  sj)ring  of  1837,  all  the  documentary  evidence  existing,  points 
rather  to  the  spring  of  1838,  as  the  date  of  its  inception.  First,  we  should  expect  at 
least  a reference  to  this  device  in  the  article  prepared  for  Silliman’s  Journal  of  Spetemher, 

1837,  in  announcing  the  intention  of  experimenting  with  “a  circuit  of  several  miles.” 
Secondly,  we  should  certainly  expect  to  find  it  spoken  of  as  a saving  expedient  in 
the  caveat  of  October  3,  1837,  if  it  were  at  that  time  in  the  author’s  mind,  and  he  were 
desirous  of  protecting  it.  Thirdly,  we  should  expect  to  find  it  unavoidably  brought 
forward  (at  least  as  a suggestion)  before  the  committee  of  the  Franklin  Institute, 
February  8,  1838,  when  the  doubt  was  expressly  discussed  in  the  committee’s  report  as 
to  the  practicable  distance  to  which  the  telegraph  could  be  made  to  signal.  This  con- 
spiracy of  silence,  this  conspicuous  absence  (in  every  published  case)  of  the  slightest 
hint  upon  the  subject,  although  so  directly  prompted  and  invited,  is  difficult  ( ex  post 
facto)  to  account  for.  The  earliest  documentary  reference  now  extant,  to  a junction 
of  circuits,  occurs  in  the  application  for  a patent  signed  by  Professor  Morse  April  7, 

1838. 

On  filing  this  application  in  the  Patent  Office,  he  had  requested  that  it  might  be  re- 
tained in  the  secret  archives,  unacted  upon,  until  he  should  have  procured  his  foreign 
patents.  He  left  this  country  for  Europe  with  that  object  May  16,  1838,  and  returned 
to  New  York  April  15,  1839.  For  a year  or  more  afterward  he  took  no  step  toward 
procuring  his  patent,  till  he  wrote  the  following  letter  to  the  “ Hon.  H.  L.  Ellsworth, 
Commissioner  of  Patents”: 

“New  York,  May  2,  1840. 

“Dear  Sir:  I have  never  received  my  patent  papers  from  your  office.  I believe 
there  was  something  to  be  done  on  my  part  in  relation  to  a drawing  for  one  of  the 
duplicates,  which  I was  prevented  from  accomplishing  by  the  necessity  of  preparing 
suddenly  for  my  visit  to  Europe  with  the  telegraph.  I have  nearly  completed  an  im- 
proved apparatus  for  which  I intend  to  take  out  a patent,  adding  it  to  my  patent 
already  executed,  as  an  improvement.  . . . 

“ Your  old  friend  and  classmate, 

“ Samuel  F.  B.  Morse.” 

To  this  the  Commissioner  replied  as  follows : 

“Patent  Office,  May  14,  1840. 

“ Sir  : The  specifications  and  drawings  of  your  alleged  improvement  in  the  mode  of 
communicating  signals  by  the  application  of  electro-magnetism  are  herewith  re- 
turned to  you,  the  explanatory  reference  in  the  same  not  being  sufficient  to  properly 
illustrate  the  invention.  Some  annotations  pointing  out  the  parts  where  these  are 
wanting  are  marked  in  pencil  in  the  margin  of  the  description. 

“ Your  favor  of  the  2d  instant  has  been  received ; in  reply  to  which  the ‘office  has  to 
state  that  the  delay  attending  the  granting  of  your  application  has  not  been  caused 
by  any  want  of  attention  on  its  part.  Some  two  years  since,  when  your  patent  was 
about  being  issued,  a request  was  made  by  you  that  the  case  might  be  postponed  until 
you  should  have  received  letters  patent  from  the  European  governments.  This  request 
was  complied  with,  and  as  no  communication  has  been  received  from  you  since  in  re- 
lation to  the  issuing  of  the  patent,  the  case  has  been  permitted  to  lie  over.  The  pat- 
ent will  be  issued  however  immediately  on  the  return  of  the  papers. 

“ Yours  respectfully, 

“H.  L.  Ellsworth.” 

The  amended  specification  and  a duplicate  set  of  drawings  were  returned  to  the 
Patent  Office  by  Professor  Morse,  with  a letter  dated  New  York,  May  18,  1840.  It  was 
then  discovered  that  the  original  oath  of  invention  required  by  law  was  defective  in 


100 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


omitting  a specific  (late,  tlie  space  for  the  day  and  the  month  having  been  left  blank 
The  applicant  having  been  informed  of  this  by  official  letter  dated  May  26,  1840,  a new 
affidavit,  properly  executed,  was  sent  to  the  Patent  Office  May  29,  1840,  and  the  pat- 
ent was  finally  issued  June  20,  1840. 

Whether  the  true  date  of  the  invention  of  the  “relay,”  by  Professor  Morse,  be  1837, 
or  1838,  is  not  regarded  as  a matter  of  any  importance  historically,  as  in  either  case, 
he  is  fully  credited  with  its  original  conception. 

NOTE  L.  (From  p.  68.) 

ALPHABETIC  BINARY  NOTATION. 

It  seems  proper  to  take  some  notice  of  the  growth  of  that  beautiful  invention,  the 
hi -signal  alphabet.  Its  origin  appears  to  be  considerably  earlier  than  that  of  its  con- 
gener, the  binary  arithmetical  notation  devised  by  Leibnitz  two  hundred  years  ago. 
An  alphabetic  code  of  signals  is  indeed  as  old  as  the  time  of  the  Greek  historian  Poly- 
bius (150  years  before  the  Christian  era),  who  describes  in  the  tenth  book  of  his  Gen- 
eral History  a method  of  signaling  to  a distance  any  required  dispatch  by  means  of 
torches, — which  he  says  was  invented  by  Cleoxenus  and  Democlitus,  and  perfected  by 
himself.  In  this  scheme  the  Greek  alphabet  of  24  letters  is  distributed  into  five  series 
or  tablets,  each  comprising  five  letters:  (the  last  space  being  vacant.)  Then  torches 
(from  one  to  five)  exposed  on  the  left  side,  will  indicate  the  group  or  tablet ; and  sim- 
ilar torches  raised  on  the  right  side,  will  indicate  the  place  of  the  letter  on  the  tablet.* 
This  system  may  obviously  be  very  easily  resolved  into  a bi-signal  alphabet.  It  ap- 
pears that  the  emperor  Leo  YI,  (of  the  eastern  division  of  the  empire)  about  the  year 
a.  d.  900,  in  a chapter  of  his  “Military  Tactics,”  on  naval  warfare,  described  a plan 
somewhat  similar  to  the  above,  t 

An  early  English  example  of  the  bi-signal  alphabet  is  to  be  found  in  Francis  Bacon’s 
“Advancement  of  Learning,”  published  in  1605.  In  this  Treatise,  discoursing  on  cryp- 
tography, he  observes  : “We  shall  here  annex  a cipher  of  our  own,  that  we  devised  at 
Paris  in  our  youth.  . . . The  invention  is  this : let  all  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  be 

resolved  into  two  only,  by  repetition  and  transposition ; for  a transposition  of  two  let- 
ters through  five  places  or  different  arrangements,  will  denote  two-and-thirty  differences? 
and  consequently  fewer  or  four-and-twenty, — the  number  of  letters  in  our  alphabet.” 
(It  will  be  remembered  that  at  this  date  the  letters  j and  u had  not  been  differentiated 
from  i and  v.)  Bacon  then  gives  an  example  of  “ a bi-literal  alphabet”  consisting  of 
the  permutations  of  “a”  and  “ b”  through  five  places;  and  he  subjoins  the  comment 
that  “this  contrivance  shows  a method  of  expressing  and  signifying  one’s  mind  to  any 
distance , by  objects  that  are  either  visible  or  audible,  provided  the  objects  are  capable 
of  two  differences,  as  bells,  speaking-trumpets,  fire-work3,  cannon,  &c.”t 

In  the  “Cyclopaedia”  of  Doctor  Abraham  Rees,  published  early  in  the  present  century 
(1802-1819),  under  the  word  “'cipher”  are  presented  among  a variety  of  interesting 
alphabetic  notations,  examples  of  one  formed  by  the  combinations  of  three  characters, 
and  of  one  formed  by  two  characters  ; the  latter  evidently  copied  from  Bacon.  The 
compiler  sdys : “Another  mode  of  corresponding  by  cipher  is  striking  two,  or  three; 
bells  of  various  sizes.”  After  remarking  that  two  symbols  require  a larger  combina- 
tion for  each  letter  than  three,  and  giving  an  example  of  each  kind,  the  writer  adds : 
“The  effect  will  be  the  same,  whether  the  writer  make  use  of  arithmetical  characters, 
letters,  dots,  lines,  mathematical  diagrams,  or  any  other  sign  which  admits  of  two,  or  of 
three  differences.”  Employing  as  an  instance  the  figures  1 and  2,  he  makes  use  of 
five  recurrences  for  each  letter,  as  in  the  example  given  by  Bacon,  and  he  follows  a 

’'Polybius’s  History ; lib.  x.  cap.  45.  Greek  and  Latin  edition  of  A.  F.  Didot,  Paris, 
8vo.  1852.  pp.  474, 475. 

t“  The  emperor  Leo  YI,  in  his  chapter  on  naval  tactics  (chap,  xix),  describes  almost  ex- 
actly Myer’s  army  code,  concluding  with  the  remark,  ‘ as  the  ancients  did.’  ” ( Johnson’s 
Universal  CyclojKedia:  edited  by  Dr.  Barnard:  aft.  “Naval  Signals,”  vol.  iii.  p.  734.) 

t On  the  Dignity  and  Advancement  of  Learning,  book  vi,  chap.  i. — Bolin’s  edition,  1858, 
pp.  222, 223. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


101 


similar  order  of  permutations.  The  two  symbols — the  single  dot  or  period  (.),  and  the 
double  dot  or  colon  (:), — are  also  employed  for  the  same  purpose.  * 

In  the  following  table  are  displayed  several  examples  of  bi-signal  alphabets,  chrono- 
logically arranged,  t In  the  first  column,  the  two  symbols  “a”  and  “b,”  and  in  the 
second  column  the  two  symbols  “ 1”  and  “2,”  may  stand  for  dots,  lines,  colors,  bells, 
or  any  other  distinctions  of  sight  or  sound,  as  indicated  by  Bacon  and  by  Rees.  In 
the  third  column  is  exhibited  the  notation  of  an  acoustic  alphabet  devised  by  Mr.  James 
Swaim,  of  Philadelphia,  and  published  in  1829,  in  a pamphlet  entitled  “ The  Mural 
Diagraph,  or  the  Art  of  Conversing  though  a Wall.”  In  this  scheme  (sometimes 
designated  the^ prison  alphabet),  the  symbol  “t”  signifies  an  audible  tap  or  knock, 
and  the  “s”  an  audible  scratch.  + In  the  next  three  columns,  the  two  symbols  “r’’ 
and  “1”  represent  a movement  of  a galvanometer  needle  to  the  right  and  to  the  left. 
In  the  last  three  columns,  the  symbols  “s”  and  “1”  represent  a short  mark  or  dot, 
and  a long  mark  or  dash. 


I.  ! 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

Bacon. 

Rees. 

Swaim. 

Schilling. 

Gauss  & 
W eber. 

Steinheil. 

Original 

Morse. 

Later 

Morse. 

European 

Morse. 

1605. 

1809. 

1829. 

— 

1833. 

1836. 

1838. 

1844. 

1851. 

A 

aaaaa 

11  111 

t 

rl 

r 

lrl 

sss 

si 

si 

B 

aaaab 

11112 

tt 

rrr 

11 

lrrl 

ss  ss 

Isss 

lsss 

C 

aaaba 

11121 

ttt 

rll 

rrr 

llr 

s ss 

ss  s 

lsls 

D 

aaabb 

11122 

tttt 

rrl 

rrl 

rl 

sss  s 

lss 

lss 

E 

aabaa 

11211 

s 

r 

1 

1 

s 

s 

8 

P 

aabab 

11212 

ss 

rrrr 

rlr 

lrr 

s ssS 

sis 

ssls 

G 

aabba 

11221 

sss 

1111 

lrr 

rrl 

ss  s 

11s 

11s 

H 

aabbb 

11222 

SSSS  j 

rill 

111 

rrrr 

i SSSS 

SSSS 

SSSS 

I 

abaaa 

12111 

ts 

IT 

rr 

r 

si 

ss 

ss 

J 

— 

12112 

t tts 

rrll 

1 

r 

ss  s 

lsls 

sill 

K 

abaab 

12122 

1 1 

rrrl 

rrr 

llr 

lsl 

lsl 

lsl 

L 

ababa 

12211 

ttt 

lrrr 

llr 

rll 

V 

r 

slss 

M 

ah  abb 

12212 

t ttt 

lrl 

lrl 

rrr 

lss 

11 

11 

N : 

abbaa 

12221 

t tttt 

lr 

rll 

rr 

Is 

Is 

Is 

0 

abbab 

12222 

t 8 

rlr 

rl 

111 

ss 

s s- 

111 

p 

abbba 

21111 

t SS  ' i 

Hit 

rrrr 

rllr 

sssss 

sssss 

slls 

Q 

abbbb 

21112 

t SSS  ' 

lllr 

ssls 

• ssls 

llsl 

R 

baaaa 

21121 

t SSSS 

lrr 

rrrl 

11 

8 S 

s ss 

sis 

s 

baaab 

21122 

t ts 

11 

rrlr 

llrr 

sis 

sss 

sss 

T 

baaba 

21211 

tt  tts 

1 

rlrr 

lr 

11s 

1 

1 

IJ 

— 

21212 

tt  t 

llr 

lr 

rlr 

sll 

' ssl 

ssl 

V 

baabb 

21221 

tt  tt  1 

111 

rlr 

rlr 

1 

sssl 

sssl 

w 

babaa 

12121 

tt  ttt 

rlrl 

lrrr 

rlrl 

ssl 

sll 

sll 

X 

babab 

22212 

tt  tttt 

Mr 

11 

slss 

lssl 

Y 

babba 

22221 

tt  s 

rllr  , 

si 

ss  ss 

lsll 

z 

babbb 

22122 

tt  ss 

rlrr 

rrll 

rrll 

sis 

sss  s 

llss 

* Rees’  Cyclopaedia,  vol. 

viii,  art. 

, “ Ciplie 

r.” 

tOf  two  early  alphabets  for  the  electric  telegraph,— that  of  Lomond  in  178/,  and  that 
of  Dyar  in  1828,  no  records  appear  to  exist.  A plan  was  suggested  by  Henry  at  Al- 
bany in  1831  or  1832,  for  indicating  letters  on  a bell  by  the  number  of  their  position  in 
the  alphabet:  “a”byl,  “b”  by  2,  “c”by  3,  &c.  'Thus  the  words  “come  back” 
would  be  represented  by  the  following  taps:  3-15-13-5—2-1-3-11 ; the  word  “electro- 
magnet,” by  5-12-5-3-20-18-15 — 13-1-7-14-5-20.  The  cipher  or  zero  occurring  at  the 
10th  letter  “j,”  and  at  the  20th  letter  “t”  would  be  indicated  by  a rapid  rattle  of  the 
bell.  It  does  not  appear  however  that  this  alphabet  was  actually  employed,  unless 
perhaps  experimentally. 

XThe  Mural  Diagraph , etc.  “ Through  the  wall  they  are  content  | To  whisper,  at  the 
which  Let  no  man  wonder.”  Midsummer  Night’s  Dream,  v.  i.  Bv  James  Swaim.  16- 
mo.  24  pages.  Philadelphia.  Printed  by  Clark  & Raser.  1829.  pp.  13,  14.  The 
signs  were  used  numerically ; and  beyond  “26”  (the  letters  of  the  alphabet)  were  ap- 
plied to  a numbered  vocabulary. 


102 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH. 


4 

The  first  column  in  the  above  tabular  view,  represents  tbe  scheme  proposed  by  Bacon  f 
and  designated  by  him  “A  Bi-literal  Alphabet;’7  a scheme — as  he  points  out,  “prac- 
ticable in  all  things  that  are  capable  of  two  differences.”  The  advantage  of  represent- 
ing every  letter  by  five  tokens,  is  that  it  dispenses  with  the  necessity  of  spacing  the 
letters  from  each  other. 

The  second  column  represents  an  alphabet  shown  and  described  in  Rees’  “Cyclopaj- 
dia”  as  already  referred  to.  In  this  alphabet  the  first  nine  letters  follow  exactly  the 
notation  of  Bacon.  After  the  interpolated  letter  j,  ( which  takes  the  symbol  for  k,  ) the 
remainder  of  the  alphabet  from  k to  v inclusive,  follows  regularly  the  notation  of 
Bacon — shifted  two  letters  downward.  The  only  symbols  differing  from  Bacon’s,  are 
those  for  x,  y,  and  z. 

The  third  column  gives  the  alphabet  of  Swaim  above  mentioned.  The  author  has 
not  been  successful  in  arranging  for  his  letters  the  simplest  combinations  of  taps  and 
scratches  which  might  have  been  selected ; having  given  to  n,  r,  t,  and  w,  five  sig- 
nals, and  to  x,  six  ; while  four  of  his  signs  are  sufficient  to  represent  30  different  char- 
acters. Moreover  by  adopting  a numeral  system  of  designation,  he  has  been  driven 
to  the  awkward  and  entirely  unnecessary  expedient  of  introducing  spaces  into  letters 
in  seventeen  cases,  or  in  two-thirds  of  the  alphabet ; that  is  in  all  letters  following  the 
ninth  letter — i. 

The  fourth  column  gives  the  alphabet  of  Schilling,  as  represented  in  Vail’s  “Electro- 
Magnetic  Telegraph:  ” (page  156.)  The  date  of  this  is  uncertain ; involving  as  it  does 
the  question  when  Schilling  first  employed  a single  circuit  and  a single  galvanometer 
in  his  telegraphic  arrangement.  Whether  he  or  Gauss  and  Weber  first  devised  this 
very  important  simplification  is  equally  undetermined  ; though  the  presumption  is  in 
favor  of  Schilling  having  been  the  first  to  introduce  the  bi-signal  alphabet  into  teleg- 
raphy. With  a judicious  distribution  of  the  simplest  signs  to  the  most  frequent  let- 
ters, the  average  number  of  elementary  signals  need  not  exceed  two  and  a half  for 
every  letter  used,  (or  just  one-half  the  number  required  by  Bacon’s  alphabet,)  in  any 
lengthy  communication.  Steinheil,  who  was  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with  Schil- 
ling’s labors,  appears  to  regard  his  system  as  imitated  from  that  ot  Gauss  and  Weber. * 

The  fifth  column  gives  the  alphabet  of  Gauss  and  Weber,  as  represented  in  Turnbull’s 
“Electro-Magnetic  Telegraph.”  t In  this  alphabet  c and  k have  the  same  symbol; 
as  have  also  f and  v. 

The  sixth  column  gives  the  alphabet  of  Steinheil  as  represented  in  Dub’s  Anwendung 
des  Elektromagnetismus : Berlin,  1863:  (2d  ed.  1873,  sec.  v,  page  343:)  in  Vail’s  Treatise; 
(page  182:)  and  in  Turnbull’s  Treatise ; (1853,  page  97.)  In  this  alphabet  c and  k 
have  the  same  character  ; i and  j have  the  same ; and  u and  v have  the  same  ; the 
letters  Q,  x,  and  y,  being  dispensed  with.  Steinheil  remarks  of  its  arrangement, 
“ The  alphabet  I have  chosen  represents  the  letters  that  occur  the  oftenest  in  German, 
by  the  simplest  signs”;  a plan  also  adopted  by  Schilling  and  by  Gauss. 

The  seventh  column  gives  the  original  alphabet  of  Morse,  as  devised  by  him  (or  by  his 
assistant — Mr.  Vail)  in  1838;  and  for  the  first  time  described  in  his  application  for  a 
patent  dated  April  7,  1838.  This  is  accordingly  the  alphabet  presented  in  Morse’s  first 
patent,  dated  June  20, 1840.  In  this,  he  has  given  the  same  symbol  to  g and  j ; the  same 
to  i and  y ; and  the  same  to  s and  z.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  down  to  the  year 
1838,  Professor  Morse  had  conceived  only  the  naval  system  of  signals  by  means  of 
numbered  words,  and  the  method  of  recording  such  numbers  by  the  alternating  or 
continuous  zig-zag  mark,  equivalent  to  the  right  and  left  deflections  of  Steinheil’s 
register  and  that  not  till  some  time  in  January  of  that  year  (1838),  did  he  make  the 
great  advance  of  substituting  the  up  and  down  movement  of  the  armature  recorder, 
for  its  transverse  motion.  He  then  for  the  first  time  made  his  telegraphic  communi- 

* Sturgeon’s  Annals  of  Electricity , etc.  vol.  iii,  pp.  448,  450. 

t Second  edition,  1853,  p.  60. 

f New  York  Journal  of  Commerce,  of  September  7,  1837,  and  of  January  29,  1838. 


HENRY  AND  THE  TELEGRAPH.  103 

cations  by  means  of  an  alphabet ; and  improving  on  his  predecessors,  devised  this 
alphabet  in  its  simplest  form,  of  a rectilinear  succession  of  dots  and  lines. 

A few  years  later,  the  modification  given  in  the  eighth  column  was  adopted ;*  being 
the  code  now  in  use  in  this  country.  This  second  alphabet  of  Morse  retains  but  seven 
of  the  letters  in  his  original  alphabet;  namely,  e,  h,  k,  l,  n,  p,  and  q.  The  remain- 
ing symbols  are  changed  in  their  application.  Both  of  these  alphabets  present  the 
anomaly  of  employing  for  the  letter  l the  unique  symbol,  a dash  of  double  length : a 
[ symbol  whose  combinations  with  dots  might  have  been  much  more  appropriately  re- 
served for  designating  numerals.  And  they  both  also  present  the  very  awkward  ar- 
! rangement  of  introducing  in  five  or  six  cases,  a space  in  the  middle  of  a letter.  This 
occurred  with  b,  c,  d,  f,  g or  j,  and  r,  in  the  first  alphabet,  and  remains  with  c,  o, 
r,  y,  and  z in  the  later  alphabet.  Whence  it  becomes  difficult  to  distinguish  be- 
tween c and  ie,  between  o and  ee,  between  r and  ei,  between  y and  n,  and  between  z 
and  se;  and  if  on  the  other  hand  the  intra-literal  space  be  made  too  brief,  c or  R 
may  easily  be  mistaken  for  s,  O for  i,  and  Y or  z for  H. 

The  ninth  and  last  column  gives  the  alphabet  adopted  Joy  the  Vienna  convention  in 
October,  1851,  for  European  languages;  as  represented  in  Prescott’s  larger  treatise  on 
Electricity  and  the  Electric  Telegraph,.  1877 : (page  480.)  This  alphabet  avoids  the  obvi- 
ous blunder  in  Morse’s  notation,  and  presents  a homogeneous  system.  In  this  code 
eleven  of  the  Morse  letters  are  changed : c,  f,  l,  and  r,  having  been  taken  from 
Gerke’s  alphabet,  O,  and  p,  from  Steinheil’s,  and  J,  Q,  x,  Y,  and  z,  from  other  sources. 
Of  the  original  “Morse  alphabet”  only  four  letters  are  retained,  viz,  e,  h,  k,  and  n. 
This  European  or  “international”  alphabet  is  however  in  a few  of  its  symbols,  bet- 
ter adapted  to  the  German  than  to  the  English  language.  Accordingly  in  the  Atlantic 
cable  alphabet,  the  two  letters  m (11),  and  o (111),  have  been  transposed  ; as  in  Eng- 
lish the  letter  o occurs  nearly  three  times  as  frequently  as  the  letter  m. 

We  thus  perceive  by  what  apparently  small  steps  so  simple  a contrivance  as  an  al- 
phabetic notation,  (scarcely  demanding  the  exercise  of  invention,)  has  been  succes- 
sively modified  and  improved.  But  although  the  “Vienna”  alphabet  is  now  univer- 
sally employed  elsewhere,  American  operators’have  not  yet  had  the  intelligent  courage, 
to  incur  the  temporary  additional  labor  and  inconvenience  of  change,  for  the  perma- 
nent advantage  of  a more  perfect  system,  t 

* Represented  in  Vail’s  Treatise,  1845,  p.  27 ; in  Turnbull’s  Treatise,  1853,  p.  73 ; in 
G.  B.  Prescott’s  Hist,  of  Electric  Telegraph,  1860,  p.  89;  and  in  F.  L.  Pope’s  Modern  Prac- 
tice of  the  Electric  Telegraph , 4th  ed.  1871,  p.  101. 

t “It  has  been  proposed  to  introduce  the  European  alphabet  in  this  country  also  ; 
but  although  the  advantages  of  such  a reform  would  doubtless  be  numerous,  yet  it 
may  perhaps  be  better  to  suffer  some  inconvenience  from  an  acknowledged  imperfec- 
tion, than  to  attempt  to  remedy  it  by  introducing  a change  that  would  for  a time 
cause  serious  annoyance  to  the  thousands  of  skillful  operators  now  in  the  service.” 
.(Prescott’s  Electricity  and  the  Electric  Telegraph,  1877,  chap,  xxx,  p.  431.) 


G 


30 


12  072399865 

' - '<  4***  - 


' 


. 

* ' , . 

•T  , k > 

• • n;;J  H|  ‘ 


. 


■ 


. 


